Talk:Roswell incident/Archive 7

Grays, Hangar 18, Aztec, Pflock
please stop trying to make the same edit to the article when it is disputed. In particular, off-topic material on Grays, Hanger 18 and the Aztec incident, is not helpful. And there is no need to add redundant references to low-quality publications like Pflock when we have university press references saying the same thing better. Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using talk, it is appreciated.  I will not re-add controversial material, but I do insist you not wholesale revert constructive edits without objection.   To respond to the four objections you've stated here, in order to build consensus for inclusion:
 * Grays -- reliable sources report that "Grays" are part of the Roswell legend, even being called "Roswell Grays".  Reliable sources report this element of the lore originated with Barney Hill and False Memory Syndrome.
 * Hangar 18 -- reliable sources report that "Hangar 18" is part of the Roswell lore.  Reliable sources indicate this element of the lore began with a proven hoaxer whose wild tales influenced a science-fiction film.
 * Aztec - Aztec was part of the article before I got here, but as a first-time reader of the article, it was jarring and confusing to encounter it AFTER the events of the 1990s.
 * Pflock - So far as I am aware, Pflock is a debunker, not a low-quality source.
 * Our articles can't debunk what we never mention.   Readers deserve to know that Grays came from a psychiatric patient and hangar 18 came from a known hoaxer. Feoffer (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a general issue here that if some article is mentioned as being a "main" article, then material here should be a WP:SS summary of that - typically a few sentences. Instead off-topic material is being crammed-in here which does not even exist in the supposed "main" article that is linked. Stuff on gray aliens should go in that article. Likewise for Hangar 18, Aztec, Autopsy films, etc. Pflock can be a useful source, yes, when there's nothing better - but when we have a scholarly book saying something, there's no need to have a "Pflock says so too" alongside, as it adds nothing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your objections.  Surprised by your objection to "autopsy films", I haven't heard any objections to that material, so far as I know all editors are in agreement that the article should reflect Dennis & Santelli as hoaxers.   One of your minor objections should be easy to solve -- you object to the "main" tag being used when the section doesn't, strictly-speaking, summarize linked-to the article;   That's valid.  Our readers don't need a summary of the entirety of those subarticles, they just need to know the influence on the Roswell legend.  We should demote the "mains" to "seealsos".  Good call.
 * Do you have any objections to this summation of Pflock noting the complete absence of interest in Roswell from authorities of that era?  Feoffer (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For that matter, can you articulate a reason our readers shouldn't learn that all RSes conclude the "Grays" of Roswell legend derive from a psychiatric patient's false memory syndrome?  No disrespect to you if you're a "believer" -- I know it 2021 and I get there's all kinds of ideas float around out there, no disrespect to your beliefs in UFOs, but we do a MAJOR disservice if we don't tell our readers that the "Roswell Grays" came from a mental patient.   Sorry, but people are confused enough as is.  This article should debunk the Roswell Grays -- to do otherwise is to promote fringe Feoffer (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kindly keep your stupid personal insinuations to yourself. All I'm saying is we have articles on these various topics, where material on them belongs, rather than that tangential material being piled in here. Alexbrn (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My thinking for moving the Aztec stuff to later in the article is that it only becomes relevant to the Roswell case later—there's no relation between the two events in the 40s/50s; it only becomes relevant when it seems that people start mixing them up (I assume this starts in the 70s with Friedman's research, though I haven't read the source yet). Maybe rather than just moving it, it should be rewritten and worked into the "Problems with witness accounts" section as a specific example and possible explanation for some of the problems. If that's amenable to others I'm happy to do it once we reach consensus. Regardless, though, I don't think this article needs a section about another event without putting it in context of how it relates to this one. Suomichris (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe, at the end of the "Problems with witness accounts" section, we could add something like:


 * Another issue with the later accounts of the Roswell incident is that many alleged "first hand" accounts of the Roswell incident contain information from the Aztec, New Mexico, UFO incident, a hoaxed flying saucer crash which gained national notoriety after being promoted by journalist Frank Scully in his articles and a 1950 book Behind the Flying Saucers. The hoax included stories of humanoid bodies and metals with unusual properties. The supposed humanoid bodies were said to measure between 36 in and 42 in in height, and weigh around 40 lb.


 * Thoughts? Suomichris (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes your suggested edit fits in the context of a section that specifically discusses problems with so called witness accounts. By contrast, a Grey alien section all about Betty and Barney Hill comes off as disconnected from the topic. Although greys are common to both stories, I'm not aware of secondary sources that explicitly connect Roswell and the Hills.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That material was well-sourced. We'll try it as a refutation of the Santelli film and see if that sticks 'run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes'. Feoffer (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Toby Smith source, I don't have access to it to see the context, but my suggestion is rather than have the article retelling the Hill story in detail, you could have said something like "According to Toby Smith, descriptions of grey aliens in Roswell lore were influenced by claims of Betty and Barney Hill in the 1960s..." (or similar summary). BTW, the idea here is not to get your preferred sources to "stick" at any cost. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good call, I've done as you suggest. I used Rutkowski instead of Smith since it's easier to search and verify, I don't have any particular "preference" for the Smith source, anyone who connects these dots will do.  Feoffer (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to WP:BOLD and make the Aztec change. And I agree on the Greys/the Hills—I don't see why that would be mentioned here. Suomichris (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've changed my mind on this—I think it's worth mentioning the Greys here, but only to show that you don't get reports of Greys at Roswell until after they've already appeared elsewhere in popular culture. This probably doesn't warrant its own section, but I'd suggest we roll it into the "Problems with witness accounts" section as we keep working through. Suomichris (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Drop UFO from title?
WP:COMMON suggests we should go with "Roswell incident" rather than "Roswell UFO incident". No one reputable claims to have witnessed a flying object explode mid-air or crash; Neither weather balloons nor MOGUL balloons can "fly" (nor are they any longer unidentified). Feoffer (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support this. And now that you mention it, I think people typically say "Roswell incident" not "UFO incident", so there's at least two reasons to change it. Suomichris (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. That's the commonly used name. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree Present title is pandering to conspiracy theories. David J Johnson (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I started to make the move and moved the talk page and archives before realizing I couldn't move the article over a redirect. :( I just requested a move. If it is denied the moves I made will have to be moved back. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * All sorted now. My apologies for screwing it up at first. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For this page, I don't blame you for thinking the crack beforehand would help ;) Thanks for the help, both with the move and with cleaning up the page and citations! Suomichris (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"Books" subsection
While there's some attention on this page, let's keep the improvements going! The "Books" subsection under "Growing interest, 1978–1995" seems very out of place to me. I feel the "Growing interest, 1978–1995" section should be a single narrative of how things play out, citing these books as changes in the story, but without just providing a list of what was published in that period. What do others think? Suomichris (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree 1000%. I'm on it.  Feoffer (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting this started! I made some more changes, trying to make things more chronological, as well as get rid of repeated info. I'm not sure I like "The 1980s" and "The 1990s" as headers, but I think we can leave them for now while we get things organized and then figure out if there's a better option. Suomichris (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this above suggestion, your BOLD Aztec edit, and all your other subsequent edits! Feoffer (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You as well! The page is starting to look pretty good! Suomichris (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg

UFO Crashed 74 Miles from Roswell Army Air Base on 7/4/47
https://www.roswellufomuseum.com/about-us 2601:589:4802:AB0:F876:FB71:D4D3:8D2E (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

[sic]
Undo this edit. The phrasing of the citation is correct. --173.52.52.239 (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Marcel redaction
Jesse Marcel said the whole balloon was a coverup himself why is this omitted? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0tGYguP3IA&ab_channel=nutsandboltsufo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.189.226 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Phenomenon (2020)
I reverted the section added as WP:UNDUE since the film only touched on the article topic and appears to be mostly about a supposed deep state conspiracy to cover up alien visitation. There doesn't appear to be any WP:FRIND sourcing that could provide critical analysis of this rather non-notable film. Available sources seem to lean toward a WP:SENSATIONAL angle and take the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims at face value, so it would be impossible to write a neutral summary of any relevant content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Addition to the "in Popular Fiction" section.
According to a couple of sources, the Roswell incident occurred in Wolfenstein II:The New Colossus (as an experimental aircraft crashing), yet I don't really see a mention of it here. Is there a reason why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.88.72.203 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What sources? VdSV9• ♫ 13:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

W.W. Brazel
i've corrected the spelling (from Brazell) as the vast majority of online sources, including contemporaneous local press reports, spell the name with one "L". Drollere (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Evolution of the Mainstream Narrative?
This article does a pretty good job covering developments in the story of Roswell among UFO researchers, but it doesn't really cover how the story was covered by skeptics and debunkers before the Air Force connected it to Project Mogul. Did they acknowledge signs of a military cover-up or did they cover it as an ordinary weather balloon? 135.180.64.222 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Gort
 * As far as I can tell, the Mogul connection was first established in the mid 1990s . Roswell alien crash coverup myths were virtually nonexistent in the 50s, 60s, 70s and much of the 80s. It was only when the story began to be hyped and saturated popular culture and the internet in the mid to late 1990s did any skeptical response arise. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There weren't any signs of a "military cover-up," as the initial coverage suggested that the prime witness - Jesse Marcel - didn't know what he was talking about when it came to weather balloons and rawin devices. He thought it was some alien debris, and, embarrassed, changed his story once this was pointed out to him. Well, maybe, if aliens were the size of mice and travelled the interstellar medium in what by some cosmic coincidence looked exactly like a weather balloon, presumably floating through space! The UFO community made a lot of rather silly claims that the military kept changing its story, as if it was some shocking revelation that the weather balloon story probably hid a secret program - even though, uh, it was a weather balloon! The point was, it was clearly debris from something of this earth and whether the guys in charge in 1947 knew what specific program this was from is neither here nor there. They likely thought it was a complete waste of time, all this nonsense about "flying discs" - and they were right.
 * But what soon became apparent was the story kept having UFO details added, so while the UFO community made a big hay about the weather balloon/secret program story changes, they apparently had no problem at all in their massively changing Roswell story, which in the end bore zero resemblance to the story in 1947! The alien story went from 1) strange debris recovered, no aliens, to 2) strange debris recovered, and reports of aliens, but at a different site; to 3) strange debris which included clearly parts of some spacecraft (no "weather balloon") and a DIFFERENT crash site and different aliens; to 4) alien autopsies at the Roswell base and yet another crash site... The mainstream media? They noted that by around 1990, there were about a dozen claimed crashed sites and that the story by then bore zero resemblance to the one from 1947 or even 1978 when Stanton Friedman got his hands on it. And yet somehow the military going from a "weather balloon" to "secret program on a weather balloon" is some sort of smoking gun! Huh?
 * OMNI magazine was probably the first one to do a major debunking when they started to scratch the surface of a lot of these claims, especially from Randle and Schmitt, and found out that they were making up details and likely deliberately conflating stories with the Roswell incident. Case in point - the autopsy stories were full of clearly made-up details. The Air Force Report would later conclude that the duo deliberately attached details from one of Joseph Kittinger's late 50s high-dives, down to the presence of a Black sergeant, an impossibility in 1947, but matching what we know from one of the high-dive accidents.
 * In short, the press treated this as a joke, as this was clearly manufactured nonsense for the gullible. And here we are, almost 75 years after the fact, still yapping about it!Canada Jack (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved the mention of Mogul out of the 1947 section and into the Air Force Response section because it made the chronology too confusing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

i think part of the situation is that the roswell incident was superseded by the subsequent "Aztec crash" touted in Frank Scully's 1950 bestseller "Behind the Flying Saucers." This book was based on testimony from Silas Newton and Leo GeBauer, soon debunked by journalist J.P. Cahn and the conviction of Newton and GeBauer for fraud. this likely reinforced the general impression of "crash remains? nothing to see here."

the issue of "weather balloon" is a red herring. The remains, of foil, wood and paper, absolutely do not look like the typical transparent plastic weather balloon of the same era. the witness claims that "this was no weather balloon" are substantially correct. the inference that follows, "it's not a weather balloon, therefore it's extraterrestrial" is the unwarrented leap of logic, but the leap had nowhere else to go until the now obsolete Project Mogul was revealed in 1994. Drollere (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022
Change "said he believed the debris he retrieved was extraterrestrial" to "said that he believed that the debris which he retrieved was extraterrestrial." 68.12.168.117 (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No thank you. The sentence is fine as it is. No benefit in making it longer. TZubiri (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well. 68.12.168.117 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Extreme Bias in Article
Recommend readers gather their information from other sources, as this article has extreme bias. No living person really knows what occurred during this incident. The only documents, photos, exotic materials, or other details (if any) would be hidden within the purview of the U.S. military or civilian intelligence services. It was quite common, and is still quite common to manufacture a "cover-story" for UFO/UAP sightings. As of this date, this is done in the name of national security, and is not a "deep state" conspiracy theory to make this claim. Recommend the reader to draw their own individual conclusions on other reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.34.135.202 (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way(s) is this article "extremely biased"? Please give specifics. Bias does not consist in 'failing to pander to one individual's preferred fantasy', especially if that individual has a career of related media appearances and consultancy work to promote (*cough* Luis Elizondo *cough*).
 * What other Reliable sources exist that are not referenced here? Please give bibliographical details and/or links, so that the article can be improved within the confines of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy.
 * Obviously a 75-years past event will have few or no surviving adult eyewitnesses; that does not mean that documents and accounts relating to the event are necessarily biased or inaccurate: some are likely neither, and the job of historians is to assess which. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.120 (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Balloon?
After all this time, we’re still going with the weather balloon lie huh? Amazing. 71.84.88.200 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022
In the segment "Events of July 1947", the surname of the farmer who found the debris is "Brazell" instead of "Brazel". You can find this version of his name recorded in the newspaper source which this paragraph cites. (Fort Worth, TX. July 9, 1947. pp. 4. - accessible i.e. through database Newspapers.com) PatRadix (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Brazel" is widely-used in 1947 and notably more common in post-1947 sources.  Do we have any evidence Brazel is wrong and Brazell is right?  Feoffer (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2022
In the first sentence, please change "refers to" to "was". The article is about the event ("was"), not its name ("refers to"). All of the other articles in Category:July 1947 events in the United States (except for the table, where it wouldn't make sense) begin with sentences using "was" or other verbs talking about the incidents/items in question, not their names. 120.21.98.125 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Makes sense to me. Feoffer (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Japanese Balloon theory

 * The article is over-stuffed with trivia (including now the Japanese balloon stuff which has edit-warred in). It need to be a summary, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Heavy cutting is needed. Bon courage (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Bon, I apologize for what you perceived as edit-warring -- I thought your objections of "fringe/trivial" were about specific verbiage, I didn't realize that your objection was to _any_ mention of the Japanese balloon as trivial. I should have taken it to talk earlier.
 * RSes on Roswell routinely discuss the Japanese balloons which inspired the Mogul balloons. The best defense against fringe is a good offense -- readers should know that even  UFO-believers like Keel had, by 1990, concluded Roswell was just a secret balloon.
 * I'm not sure I understand your broader concerns, the prose size is still under 5000 words, easily readable. It sounds like you envision a very different sort of article than our current in-depth coverage. When you call for heavy cutting, what is it you would cut and why? Feoffer (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Japanese balloon gets half a sentence mention in a semi-decent source; Wikipedia is a meant to be a summary but instead it's an expansion, with a whole section meandering off-topic into Japanese balloon design. This is the sort of non-encyclopedic content that needs to be cut. It also uses the wrong ref style. In general the article suffers from not heeding WP:NOTEVERYTHING, including an excursion into stuff on Betty Hill? Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So, what we're trying to do with the Hills section is explain the origin of gray alien folklore that was later incorporated into the Roswell mythos. It's harder to believe "gray aliens crashed at Roswell in 1947" when you find out gray aliens didn't exist until a 1964 hypnosis session and no one associated dead bodies with Roswell until 1980.   But obviously, the article needs improvement if come away thinking it was an "excursion" Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I know. That's the problem. This is article tries to be EVERYTHING, while it should be a summary. Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you think about adding an "overview" section that summarizes the article?  Alternatively, just spitballing, but it's possible we could fork off the in-depth coverage of the folklore's evolution into a subarticle (History of Roswell in UFO Folklore? or something similar?) Feoffer (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that this article treats the topic in ways not found in RS, and so is original research. Some stuff is just made up I think. And the references have been messed up over the last ew years. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To use the example at hand -- you claim 'The Japanese balloon gets half a sentence mention in a semi-decent source', but that's demonstrably untrue.   Genesis of a Modern Myth devotes whole passages to the Japanese balloons, which are interwoven into some versions of the myth but not others. Klass talks about how the Japanese balloons inspired Mogul in his book on Roswell.  Huyghe devotes a chapter.  There are a myriad of RS going back **35+** years connecting the two (not to mention NFRINGE sources like Randle & Schmitt). Feoffer (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the semi-decent source. Bon courage (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the issue you see with Genesis of a Modern Myth? The authors—Saler (anthropologist), Ziegler (political science professor), and Moore (physicist/meteorologist)—are not ufologists and the book is published by Smithsonian Books.
 * Also you mention that references are messed up. Do you mean the combination of shortened footnotes via harv with repeated full citations? Which is the article's original format for repeated references? I'm assuming harv. I could take some time soon and convert the repeated full citations. I think it's no big deal though to have single use citations mixed in with shortened footnotes. I've been using sfn and feel like it's a strength of the format because it allows visual editor users to contribute. Rjjiii (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also be happy to work to harmonize the ref style. Feoffer (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Had a chance to look at the other sources. Aaron John Gulyas is a historian. He's written a couple books that specifically deal with American cultural attitudes around paranoia, cover ups, aliens, ufos, the paranormal, and conspiracy. Huyghe (2001) is a memoir by the author of several of those fantastic almanacs of weirdness. It's not a top tier source, but it's only being used to cite Edward Doty, who is documented in connection to the situation in McAndrew (1995). If there's a better way to get Doty's quote that's ideal, but maybe Huyghe interviewed him for a book? Not 100% related to checking the sources, but I learned that Athelstan Spilhaus apparently examined some of the crashed Japanese balloons while working on the tests that led to Project Mogul. Small world.Rjjiii (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The three sentences just provide context for Gulyas. Gulyas assumes a higher level of historical literacy for his readers, where as we want our article to be a tad more accessable, so we introduce it with a well-sourced sentence explaining the existence of the Japanese balloon program.  We then include the Gulyas-cited Keel theory in the second sentence.  While Gulyas's relative silence on the topic might seem the best refutation, our readers won't have read Gulyas in full and thus won't have the necessary context to infer that -- thus the third sentence makes it explicit via Huyghe.   Other authors covered in the article (Randle & Schmitt, Friedman) provide their own refutations, but readers are best served by Huyghe's quick and easy refutation from an authoritative scientific source. Feoffer (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding that new source at least reduces the amount of original research. But what is the source for 'Starting in the 1990s'? And who are these 'others'? Bon courage (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * what is the source for 'Starting in the 1990s'? Gulyas cites Dolan (2007) which reprints in full Keel's March 1990 article. The phrasing "Starting in the 1990s" could also be excised from the in-line text in favor of a ref to Keel 1990 as cited in Dolan. I've now  chopped "and others" and specified March 1990 Feoffer (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actualy, Gulyas explicitly cites Keel (1990): "John Keel, “The Fugo Balloons,” in The Best of Roswell: From the Files of Fate Magazine, the editors of Fate magazine (Lakeville, MN: Galde Press, 2007), 54–55. 26.".   Take a peek at the current verbiage and see if it meets your concerns?   Feoffer (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2023
This line does not make sense:

The book argues an alien craft was US nuclear weapons activityw when it was struck by 194.72.99.45 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * , looks like that happened in this edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've restored a legible version of the text until this is cleared up. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Contextual significance
I've restored recently-removed imagery removed as 'without contextual significance' -- it's entirely standard to help readers recognize prominent works by their distinctive imagery. An image of this sort serves not only to help readers recognize and recall the works under discussion, but further contextual significance comes in the accompany text documenting the evolution of the Roswell myth and the relatively-late inclusion of the "Grey". It's really not a big deal to show the VHS boxart of a film under discussion. Feoffer (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Refstyle mess
I object to the introduction of inline references and the awful ugly rp template. This article had consistent refs before that coped well with page numbers and the type of material cited here. Inline refs should never have been introduced, but things kept consistent thereafter per WP:CITEVAR. Bon courage (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * So do you want everything converted to Harvnb?  The downside of Harvnb is each new page citation gets a different refnumber, so readers can't see that a whole section of sequential wikitext is supported by a section of sequential source text.
 * Are mixed citation styles actually problematic? Many articles features both.  Feoffer (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Required for GA. Bon courage (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to offer some explanations and links. I should preface this by saying that I am 100% fine with 's desire that the article stick with harvnb for page numbers.
 * Wikipedia's manual of style says that citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. (WP:CITESTYLE).
 * The Good Article criteria is a subset of Wikipedia's many policies. It only currently requires that all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; (WP:GACR).
 * The Good Article criteria has permitted "general references" where full citations are given in a bibliography without shortened footnotes in the body text. There are ongoing discussions about deprecating general references for GA. General references will likely soon not be a part of GA since they become nearly impossible to verify the longer the article and its sources become ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_28#Implementing_changes_to_GA_sourcing_requirements ).
 * The tangible problem with using multiple citation methods is how they appear to a reader. If the notes look considerably different, a reader may think that the references either are considerably different or that the article is a mess. I think that using different styles for different kinds of notes is in line with the Manual of Style's request for consistency. For example, Cottingley Fairies uses a bibliography only for book sources, Mark Barr uses a different method for sources written by the article's subject, and Nahuatl uses linked body text for notes or in-text attribution. I don't see an issue with mixing online news stories into shortened footnotes for longer works (which seems fairly common), but it can be confusing to see page numbers scattered between rp, harvnb, and the full citation.
 * Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GACR also says references should be 'presented in accordance with' MOS:REFERENCES, and that says reference styles should be consistent. So by my reading no article with inconsistent references can be a GA. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ray Wind" devices?
Sorry I didn't get here in time to go over this article for GA consideration... I worked on this page extensively some 15 or so years ago...

But this phrase has to be fixed, maybe some spellcheck botched this at some point and it was never caught?

''The FWAAF weather officer on duty explained to reporters that such "ray wind" devices were used at about 80 weather stations across the country. ''

The correct term is "rawin" device. Canada Jack (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Great catch! I found RAWIN radar targets in the 1994 Air Force report and updated the article accordingly.   maybe some spellcheck botched this at some point and it was never caught?  This "ray wind" mix-up goes all the way back to 1947! I didn't get here in time to go over this article for GA consideration  It's never too late -- The true GA consideration are the improvements we make along the way.   Feoffer (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you perchance know if sources exist for us to, somewhere on Wikipedia, explain what a rawin target is? I see it claimed that rawin is derived from 'RAdar-WINd', etc. We could use a modern full color pic of one, etc. Feoffer (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * is this the same thing as a radiosonde, similar, or something else altogether? Rjjiii (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure... I thought they were the geometric foil-covered targets used for radar reflection, but the term may refer to a radiosonde... Gotta find a balloon meteorological expert on this one! Canada Jack (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are likely correct; it says "corner reflector" in Weaver (1995), p. 971: A New York University launch crew prepares a MOGUL balloon train for flight (Holloman AFB,NM, 1948). The three ML-307C/AP corner reflectors (left) are of the type that W.W. “Mac” Braze1 recovered on a ranch near Corona, NM, in June 1947. and p.977: C.B. Moore, New York University Constant Level Balloon Project Engineer (left and standing), adjusts an ANFMQ-1 radiosonde received recorder. The absence of this equipment on the first NYU field trip in June 1947 (it was left behind in New York due to space limitations of the B-17 aircraft) prompted Moore to attach additional ML-307CIAP corner reflectors to MOGULfl ights. The addition of the oddly constructed reflectors, intended to enhance radar returns, contributed to the confusion when Mogul Flight No. 4 returned to earth and was mistaken for a part of a flying saucer. Moore (right and reaching down) prepares experimental Project MOGUL microphones for launch (Holloman AFE3, Alamogordo, NM, July 1948). Images via Weaver (1995):
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mogul_balloon_train_USAF_1995.png
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mogul_corner_reflectors_USAF_1995.png
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mogul_height_Weaver_1995_USAF.png
 * Sometimes I get mixed up, Rjjiii (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding GA
I started to review this but never finished. Here are my notes regarding the images in the article:

These are fine:
 * File:RoswellDailyRecordJuly8,1947.jpg: public domain
 * File:USA New Mexico location map.svg: free license
 * File:1947-Flying-Disc-Craze-headline.png: public domain
 * File:The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William Moore cover.jpg: fair use with explanation
 * File:The Roswell Report-Case Closed.png: public domain
 * File:Alien Autopsy Fact or Fiction vhs cover.jpg: fair use with explanation
 * File:International UFO Museum and Research Center Roswell New Mexico (cropped).jpg: free license, photo is of a public building
 * File:Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg: public domain

These have issues:
 * File:Marcel-roswell-debris 0.jpg: This is not the uploader's own work? I think it's a derivative work of something in the public domain which should be explained in the licensing.
 * File:Ramey-dubose-debris.jpg: Same issues as above. It appears to be a derivative work of something from the public domain which is fine but should be explained in the licensing.
 * File:Gray alien body at UFO museum in Roswell.jpg: Frank Pierson is not the sculptor, right? If that's the case, I don't believe this is licensed correctly. It appears to be a derivative work with the permission from the sculptor. This would be non-free unless the sculptor signs off.
 * File:Alien Autopsy Exhibit at UFO Museum - Roswell, New Mexico.jpg: Same issues as above. This appears to be non-free.
 * File:Gray Alien at UFO Museum, Roswell (cropped).jpg: Again, this appears to be non-free. The uploader does not have the rights to the original sculpture.

The debris photos are great. Their descriptions don't make the copyright status clear, but I think they just need to be rephrased? The photos from the museum are likely all non-free. The outside of the museum is (I believe) fair game for photographers, but the sculptures inside would be covered by copyright law unless they are old enough to fall into public domain.Rjjiii (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed! Feoffer (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. I hope it helped and good luck with with GAN! Rjjiii (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't suppose you want to weigh in on the discussion  below about whether it's OR/SYNTH to discuss the Japanese balloons. Feoffer (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've posted some free images and videos in wiki format alongside dummy text. I started gathering this stuff a while back and was planning to use some of it for the Mogul article but haven't gotten around to it. Thought I'd share in case any of it is useful to illustrate this article, Rjjiii (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This is so biased
This article's bias is astonishing. 203.214.80.11 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Magazine Article cited as Academic peer reviewed Journal Articles.
I wanted to select a magazine article citation, but wasn't able to. I noticed that a citation which exists in the page from a magazine is cited as an Academic Journal Article. Drocj (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am not sure from your comment what the issue is. Are you using the Cite magazine template for the full citation? This article uses harvnb for shortened footnotes. For more information, you can check out Help:Shortened footnotes. Rjjiii (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Rjjiii, thank you for that link. I was able to correct my issue and the citations are now properly cited as magazines. Thanks also for the shortened footnotes info. Drocj (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to have a separate Further reading section?
It seems to me this vague section is kind of a bit confusing to include. It seems we should incorporate information from them into the article so they are part of the sources and there is no separate sources section. Drocj (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've removed the section. Feoffer (talk) Feoffer (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Overall comments and feedback (narratives)
I know I said I wouldn't have time for this, but I have something I really don't want to do right now and it has opened up a little time for procrastination. Others above have offered some solid feedback already. The biggest problem I see with the article is how it handles the conflicting narratives and assessments. I don't have an answer to the below question, but I think it needs a tentative answer to guide the article's structure.

How should the "Roswell incident" article handle these conflicting narratives to most clearly explain things:
 * Blanchard's initial 1947 which is historically significant but immediately retracted
 * Ramey's 1947 assessment in Texas which is historically significant but misleading (obscures then-classified programs)
 * Later ssessents from ufologists Moore, Friedman, Schmitt, and others that are culturally significant but both bizarre and likely inaccurate
 * 1994 Air Force assessment which is the most commonly accepted narrative in reliable sources

And I'll give some more specific examples of where this seems to be an area for improvement:
 * The "Events of July 1947" section begins with a paragraph about the flying saucer craze of 1947 which is fantastic background information. But then look at Alamogordo Army Air Field which is much further down in a conspiracy subsection. I did not realize, until looking over "Jesse Marcel", that there was a second military base a county over working on then-classified projects unknown to RAAF. There are several solutions to that particular imbalance (maybe a "Background" section before the events?), but there are places throughout the article where I think the specific details are clear but not the overall picture.
 * Why are the conspiracy theories notable? I think this should inform how they are presented. Some have clearer indications like brought large-scale attention or the excellent Historian Kathy Olmsted writes that the book's narrative has come to be known as "version 1" of the Roswell myth. Other sections seem fine on their own, but don't clearly indicate cultural impact: Mortician's tale (1989), Japanese balloons (1990), Air Force response (1994–1997), Alien autopsy hoax (1995), The Day After Roswell (1997), Stalin-Mengele conspiracy theory (2011), Continued debunking (2017–2020). I don't have an issue with the stuff about Stalin, Nazis, Imperial Japan, morticians, etc. being in the article but the current structure makes them appear comparable to Moore or Weaver, and I don't believe they are.
 * For the Greys and False Memory Syndrome section, Smith (2000) looks like a good source for the cultural impact stuff. I would lean into that. Olmsted (2009) also looks good. How the most reliable sources frame the cultural impact, mythology, and social science-type stuff, is how I would organize the Wikipedia article.

I hope this helps with improvement efforts. I don't entirely have answers, so I was hesitant to bring up issues with no actionable solution. Rjjiii (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * GREAT insights, especially about the need to cover the Mogul launches in the 1940s section! I'll start there. Feoffer (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The 21st-century material seems UNDUE to me -- Haut founded his museum in 1990, 2007 doc doesn't matter much.   The Stalin-Mengele thoery was a one day story with zero traction. Feoffer (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Including Bill Richardson who at one time was a candidate for President in the Presidential comments section isn't appropriate. No need to pad out this trivia section with obvious "stretches". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think a separate 'cultural impact' section would make a lot of sense, that's where we can locate a lot of the grey alien stuff as well as how the site has attracted tourists. Drocj (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Marcel and the National Enquirer
, I saw the "When?" tag about the national enquirer running the story in 1978. Reliable sources seem to agree that it happened, but I don't see any of them citing an issue. If you're still looking for it, I would suspect it happened early in the year, prior to February 20 when Friedman was in Louisiana. It's probably enough to trust the books, but I may try sending some emails out and see if I get any kind of response. Below are my notes from looking into Marcel's entry into ufology and the National Enquirer:

I have no idea if that stuff is helpful. Good luck to you and. I'm likely done editing for the night, Rjjiii (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The National Enquirer cannot be regarded as a reliable source. This is noted in many places. Here is one of them - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#National_Enquirer HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They would be a primary source for this article. Reliable secondary sources explain the connection. Rjjiii (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The National Enquirer cannot be regarded as a reliable source. Oh, we know! You can't trust a word that National Enquirer says. We have mainstream reliable sourcing that says National Enquirer was influential in spreading the Roswell Myth -- we're just trying to pin down the exact date.  Feoffer (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks!! And if you have any luck pinning down the exact date of the NE reprint, that would be very helpful;   Without the precise date, we can't know exactly where to place it in the narrative -- a lot went on in '78.  Feoffer (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Section: 'Alien bodies' as later hoaxes or test dummies is too wordy
I think this section should be re-written for readability and simplified. I mean I feel like I need a Phd to read it and it seems to violate WP:BECONCISE Drocj (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I did my best to address this. Drocj (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sourcing on Redfern's theory
added a tag to remind us that we needed more sourcing. Drocj removed it saying "This is not a section requiring secondary source, this is a listed conspiracy theory in a list of other listed conspiracy theories. If conspiracy theories had secondary tertiary sources etc. they would not be conspiracy theories."

Unfortunately, conspiracies do need secondary sourcing on Wikipedia. But that secondary sourcing doesn't have to say that the conspiracy theory is true, only that is exists and has had some impact. See Fringe_theories.

I'm not saying such sourcing doesn't exist -- I haven't gotten around to looking yet, I added the tag as a reminder to myself (or others) to look into it. Feoffer (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I will add another source but I am still confused, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing refers to articles which of course need to be notable.
 * This still not an article for Redfern's theory, I am listing a published book that is the source of Redfern's theory in the UFO conspiracies section. Drocj (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Evidence Section
It's repetitive & it seems to mostly cite one author. We know the government story supposedly changed from weather balloon to project Mogul balloon as conveyed in the modern views section. The evidence section should probably focus more on witness testimony, or materials found at the crash site. I think it needs some work, it just doesn't seem that professional. Drocj (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding that deleted or moved comment, it's important to clarify that I am not the original author of the section or this page. My intention is to enhance the wiki by incorporating the consensus of the community. If you have concerns about the information presented or its manner of presentation, I am open to your suggestions. My goal is to create a comprehensive and centralized resource for information, striving to maintain the standards of a reliable encyclopedia article.
 * Over the years, a significant amount of written material has emerged, including witness testimonies and descriptions of recovered materials. I believe it is crucial to include these aspects in the evidence section. It is essential to acknowledge that this page is highly controversial and often evokes strong emotions. Therefore, I emphasize the need for the evidence section to be written in a neutral tone and expanded to encompass additional supporting evidence. Drocj (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My intention is to enhance the wiki by incorporating the consensus of the community. What does that mean? I guess "the wiki" refers to the article Roswell incident (usually, "the wiki" would be the whole of Wikipedia), and "the community" is the community of Wikipedia users? The article should be based on reliable sources.
 * this page is highly controversial and often evokes strong emotions Like every article about a WP:FRINGE subject.
 * expanded to encompass additional supporting evidence Supporting what? The WP:FRINGE ideas about Roswell? If yes, bad idea. You probably will not find any "supporting evidence" in reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi@Hob Gadling you seem to have a lot of questions. I don't have time to answer them all but will attempt the most pertinent. You are curious about what additional supporting evidence I have in mind, I was thinking the sworn witness statements would be a good start. These are included in the USAF Roswell Report but pulling them out into the Evidence section should make sense especially if we are including lots of other conspiracies on the wikipage. If you find there are unreliable sources let me know. Thanks. 108.14.160.79 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the questions were about your weird wording.
 * USAF is not a reliable source; military organizations are not known for open communication or for competent fact-checking. (See The Men Who Stare at Goats.) Taking eyewitness statements at face value is naive. Also, Wikipedia wants WP:SECONDARY sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely. Should we have a small section that touches upon government secrecy surrounding this and the reliability of military organizations to be forthcoming and truthful? Drocj (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of lead summary does not encapsulate the deserved weight of this page
The current sentence:


 * "The "Roswell incident", or simply "Roswell", was the 1947 recovery of metallic and rubber debris from a military balloon by personnel from Roswell Army Air Field."

I'm thinking it should be more like one of the following:


 * "The "Roswell incident", or simply "Roswell", is the cultural enigma which resulted from a miscommunication surrounding a 1947 crash in the New Mexico desert and the recovery of debris from a military balloon by personnel from Roswell Army Air Field."


 * The "Roswell incident", or simply "Roswell", was a top secret military balloon crash that became the center of conspiracy theories after persons involved made belief defying claims about the incident decades later.


 * "Known as the "Roswell incident" or just "Roswell," this cultural anomaly originated from a misinterpreted occurrence in 1947, involving a crash in the New Mexico desert and the retrieval of debris from a military balloon by personnel stationed at Roswell Army Air Field."

Drocj (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think that any of those are reasonable alternatives as summaries of the body. Saying "cultural enigma" or "cultural anomaly", and even "belief defying claims" is some pretty contrived verbiage that obfuscates what really happened (recovery of metal and rubber debris from a military baloon), which is not the encyclopedic style of writing. —Alalch E. 07:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point but is it not also reductionist to simply state that this was a crash & recovery like any other. My point is that there should be someway to acknowledge that this incident spawned pop culture iconography without burying it entirely at the end of the lead summary. Maybe it is an epistemological view but I think that we are under weighing that aspect since it appears to me that the impact on the world is much more the conflict than the facts if that makes sense. Drocj (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to emphasize the brouhaha, we should replace the facts by it but add it at the end, for instance like this:
 * "The "Roswell incident", or simply "Roswell", was the 1947 recovery of metallic and rubber debris from a military balloon by personnel from Roswell Army Air Field, which led to several decades of hype, speculation, conspiracy theories, rumors and fakes involving alien spacecraft and bodies of alien pilots."
 * Wikipedia should not treat the question "what actually happened?" as an unimportant detail. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Hob Gadling, forget trying to sum it up with one phrase (e.g. "cultural enigma") and just say "what actually happened". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Alalch E., @LuckyLouie, & @Hob Gadling I am satisfied with that. Listing things out does seem like the best approach if the aim is to add weight: if we substitute the sentence the first paragraph rewrite would then be:
 * The "Roswell incident", or simply "Roswell", was the 1947 recovery of metallic and rubber debris from a military balloon by personnel from Roswell Army Air Field, which led to several decades of hype, speculation, conspiracy theories, rumors and fakes involving alien spacecraft and bodies of alien pilots. Decades later, conspiracy theories claimed that the debris was from a flying saucer which had been covered up by the United States government. In 1994, the United States Air Force published a report identifying the crashed object as a nuclear test surveillance balloon from Project Mogul. A second USAF report in 1997 reviewed testimonies about aliens and found them to be baseless, made up, or inspired by parachute dummies.
 * I think it is an improvement. Thoughts? Drocj (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't really gotten to the point in my process where I think about the lede, but since you bring it up. I can't quite put it into words or tell you how to fix it, but the current wording is certainly..  awkward? inelegant?  It gets the job done, but there's room for improvement...  The current first paragraph skips over the period of time when the material was unidentified (circa July 6-8), it WAS a big event in 1947, if only for one day.  The current first paragraph just sort jumps from recovery to the 1970s.  On a different point, I'd also want a perfect lede to somehow convey that the bodies were a much latter addition to the myth (30+ years later) with only a few 'witnesses' reporting them, a FRINGE theory even among FRINGE theorists. (more later)Feoffer (talk) 19:42, 20 June 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. , 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)


 * , 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, 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.  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 Non-free content, 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. -- 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
Feoffer (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ✅ 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 â€¦ 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


 * 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 â€¦ 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)

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)
 * , 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)

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)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but it's a bit tenuous of a connection.  Feoffer (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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 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, and, 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)

This and some other UFO-related pages need to be locked and other editors involved
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)

Independently of whether or not the above discussion should have been closed, I note that Indieshack nevertheless edited it more than 40 minutes after it was closed, apparently missing the two bold red "Please do not modify it" instructions. That edit was primarily removal of the following: I'm neutral on whether extraterrestrial UFOs exist or not. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Indieshack, articles are not "locked" by administrators unless there is significant disruption, personal attacks, vandalism, edit warring, etc. I don't agree with your conclusions about the article content, but if you want uninvolved editors to review the article's neutrality, WP:NPOV/N is the place to make such a request. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023
This entry needs to be updated - in at least the final section of the history of the contrary views on the Roswell Incident - with the information provided by Richard Doty - career counter intelligence officer for the Air Force and John Ramirez - career counter intelligence officer for the CIA in the 2023 documentary "In Plain Sight." The information these officers provide is highly significant in helping to resolve the debate over what occurred in the event that is referred to as the Roswell UFO Incident/Crash. Thomas A. Burns, PhD. 75.142.142.119 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please use this template after consensus has been achieved for a change; it's unclear what exactly is proposed but it sounds WP:PROFRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Dr. Burns, thank you for the suggestion.  Unfortunately, Doty and Ramirez do not meet our standards for Reliable Sources.   Doty claims to be a disinformation agent working for the USAF, but we have only his word to verify that, which obviously isn't trustworthy.    Ramirez claim to be CIA, but again, it just comes back to his word.  How do we know these two individuals are truthful in any way? We don't. Feoffer (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this helpful?
Here’s the Proof There’s No Government Alien Conspiracy Around Roswell Doug Weller  talk 13:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Also helpful is Adam Frank's latest book, "The Little Book of Aliens," which covers the same material (and much more). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Intriguing notes re. "Alien" bodies
There are accounts of a very similar incident in 1897, in Aurora Texas. In actual fact the parallels are very evident: a mysterious craft seemingly hit a windmill and disintegrated. In this case parts of the craft may have been recovered along with the pilot who alas didn't survive. Could it be that somehow the original account got mixed up with the earlier case? Some reports of non human beings have them about 4 to 5 feet in height, grey or light blue with large eyes and possibly ESP abilities. They may also have some sort of natural cloaking ability that is augmented by advanced technology so they can mimic (for a short time) human appearance or at least a close approximation. The working hypothesis here is that if we are being visited by aliens they would need to assume human form or at least look "humanish" to blend in. Legends of "Shape Shifters may actually be folks observing this effect. I did look into this a few years back and actually concluded that a few MUFON reports may indeed describe an accurate appearance, which allows a limited amount of information to be deduced such as an unusually high metabolism and as a result extreme (48c) body temperature. This could also explain reports of a heat wash when people have close encounters. 78.111.195.1 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are speculating, and asking others to do the same. That's not how Wikipedia works. We report what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Folklore scholars?
The article contains the odd claim I don't think any source verifies this. The article will never get to WP:GA if we have WP:V problems. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your insight, perhaps the statement needs rewording. The folkloric sources note the development of the narrative as it evolved from a simple tale of unusual debris to a complex tale that involved bodies, autopsies, etc.  Can you suggest non-"odd" verbiage that gets at this basic idea? Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose the question would be: what are the sources saying about what these scholars have done? Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the dialogue and insights :).   What kind of sources do you want to weigh in on what the folklore scholars have done?   Obviously, I can find plenty of further folklore scholars to say their predecessors were awesome, but I suspect you want something more?    Like, are we looking for more mainstream sources to say it is just folklore??  I don't know if we could source that -- folklore is an important lens to view Roswell, but not the only one.   Please help me understand how the article can be better from your perspective. Feoffer (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want our readers to be assured the article is paraphrasing sources rather than analysing sources (which would be WP:OR). So something that says "Scholars have ..." (or somesuch) which can be cited, so the claim can be verified to text which directly supports the claim. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good feedback! I've taken another stab at it. Feoffer (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we seem to have a book written (not published) by Saler (anthropologist), Ziegler (political scientist) and Moore (meteorologist), which in the opinion of a reviewer (Amanda Carson Banks, engineer and computer scientist) is a "focused and detailed summary of the process of the formation of a specific narrative that is the core for almost all contemporary UFO narratives and belief." Is that right? Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'm starting to see your perspective.  You're questioning whether the authors and their reviewers qualify as "folklore scholars" for lack of formal degrees in the field, whereas I'm specifically focused on the fact that their approach to the subject was folkloric.   Is that right? Feoffer (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want there to be robust text-source integrity, with a GA reviewer in mind particularly. This books sounds like an important source (I haven't read it). Isn't there something actually in the book which can be cited about "folklore"? Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're questioning whether the authors and their reviewers qualify as "folklore scholars" for lack of formal degrees in the field, whereas I'm specifically focused on the fact that their approach to the subject was folkloric. No, the question is what source made the observation that folklore scholars (in general) have traced the development of the Roswell narrative throughout its history? We should be paraphrasing what sources say rather than what Feoffer has observed while reading those sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

break
About these 'folklore scholars', the paragraph says "According to their research, the genesis can be traced back to the waning days of World War II", and the second source cited is from 1995. How can a 1995 source be commenting on a 1997 book? Bon courage (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Both '95 and '97 were independently relaying the same fact about MOGUL history, not one commenting on the other. I've tightened and relocated the language.   Feoffer (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

genesis earlier?
About the Roswell myth, the article asserts "the genesis can be traced back to the waning days of World War II (1944-45), a time when Japan unleashed thousands of Fu-Go balloon bombs" and the first source given is to page 7 of the 'folklore scholars' book (in fact, on inspection, this is to a chapter written solely by Ziegler). Yet looking at the source on page 6 it specifically cites the beginning of the "modern era of UFO sightings" to the Kenneth Arnold incident of June 24, 1947 and suggests the "flying saucers" reported from that would have been on W Brazel's mind when he found the Roswell debris days later.In general, I am becoming increasingly concerned that some article text bears only a distant relationship to the cited sources in a way which is hard to investigate and unpick. Bon courage (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do to tighten language. MOGUL predates the 1947 flying disc craze, which was ignited by Arnold in June. Feoffer (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What does the news article say?
This image of the Roswell Daily Record newspaper article with headline "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region" can be found in many places on the web. However, in spite of all that is written about the subject, and after searching for some time, I haven't been able to find a high-resolution version of the image, where the text of the article is legible. Nor can I find a transcript of the original text. Is this because of some kind of fabled so-called government conspiracy, or what? And why does no one else here seem to be curious enough to want to read the article? I mean, where else would you start in your research into aliens and UFOs? A5 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * , I hope you don't mind if I ping you. I see on the commons that you're uploading a higher quality image. Is the plan to replace the grainy image, or will they be hosted under two separate file names? Rjjiii  (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Great suggestion!  No government conspiracies, just us being dumb and not including text that a reader really should expect us to provide. :).     The text has been added to Wikisource and linked to from the article!   Looks like others are on top of finding you a high-res image too. Thanks for suggestion.  Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is not the first time that Wikipedia has been more useful than any search engine. A5 (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems that the Wikisource text of the article was deleted on 30 November by Jan.Kamenicek. A5 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! They just moved it, but I've fixed the link! Feoffer (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See: RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region.
 * The full text is also here:
 * Commons:File:Roswell Daily Record. July 8, 1947. RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region. Full front page.jpg
 * The text is an accurate copy of the article since it has been compared and corrected according to the image there. That image is the full front page, and has the full article. It is readable at the larger sizes linked under the image. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hangar 18, Aztec discs, Twin Falls
The article seems to be going into details on these other topics, the relevance of which is unclear. I think all this material should be removed. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Twin falls probably needs trimming and should be included more briefly in the general millieu of the 1947 craze, so readers do know that Roswell was just one of many of "crashed disc" incidents.  But Aztec and Hangar 18 are reported to have directly influenced Roswell mythology -- there were no dead bodies, no hieroglyphs or control panels in the original Roswell story of 1947, those elements were incorporated from Aztec and Hangar 18.  I've added text and sourcing to help clarify this. Feoffer (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved Twin Falls back down. The possible significance I see is that it was a kind of final straw for taking bizarre UFO reports seriously. I've tried to put it into that context. Rjjiii  (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I started reworking the tagged sections in a sandbox here: (permanent link) If this looks promising, I'll continue and anyone else is welcome to edit the sandbox version. I think the best path is:
 * 1. Focus these other events as described here on specifically how they affected the Roswell narrative and conspiracy theories.
 * 2. Trim specific details here and move them into the articles about the subjects if they aren't already covered.
 * Thoughts? Rjjiii  (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC) (Updated to permanent link after moving content into the article) 03:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The problem was extensive detail about things with no reason apparent why they were even included. Bon courage (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me, I'd encourage you to update the article with your version as soon as you feel comfortable. Feoffer (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

, I noticed that in the shuffle, we lost track of the fact that Carr spread claims of a nurse who witnessed an alien autopsy. I wonder if we could restore some mention of that to the text. I, readded it, but you've been knocking it out of the park on this article so I'd more trust you to fit it in where/how/if you see best using your own words.
 * Thanks, I took a look at it. And yes, feel free to be bold; I don't want my attempts to clean up the article to discourage other editors. Are there any sections you'd like another pair of eyes on? The lead looked alright so I didn't touch it. I've gone through the first few body sections, but haven't done much aside from formatting references in the conspiracy and culture sections. Rjjiii (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Pushing towards GA
Above, asks Are there any sections you'd like another pair of eyes on?. I have my answers, but I should also ping and  to add their own answers. Rjjiii has done a LOT of great work fixing the issues raised in last April's GA nom and recent talk page concerns. Lingzhi made a lot of really productive suggstions at the GA, and Bon's recent insights helped up trim a lot of unnecessary verbiage. So here's my list: Other input deeply welcomed. Feoffer (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we still need the "Roswell as modern myth and folklore" section now that the 'meat' of the section has been incorporated into main narrative. This could be trimmed extensively.  I don't think we need to go into "Roswell Syndrome".
 * Roswell in Spirituality may not be necessary. Right now, it's an uncited mixture of UFO religions, but it's not clear that they actually are inspired by Roswell, rather than being generic UFO religions.   It'd be good to have a well-sourced section on this, but right now it seems just to be harbor for OR and a barrier to GA.


 * One problems is tone. Much of the article is written as a narrative rather than adopting a dispassionate, detached and formal WP:TONE. Perhaps the most egregious example is the "Debris recovered" section (title and text), but it's a wider problem too. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bon. I want to admit I have been tagged for Tone on multiple articles by multiple independent editors, so it's something I need to lean on others to get right. Feoffer (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any ideas for a better title than "Debris recovered"? Seemed anodyne to me, but I have a blind spot.  Feoffer (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I started experimenting with that section (combined with debunking) to make it more spare. I edited these bits earlier but my focus has been on verifiability (including reference formatting), NPOV, grammar and clarity. This is the same sandbox that I used before (previous link updated to a permanent link). And again this is in user space but I'm putting an open invitation for others to edit it:
 * User:Rjjiii/sandbox11
 * I also copied the version from before Feoffer began expanding down below on that page for comparison. I looked it up in case anything of value had been lost, but it's problematic in other ways (many quotes, cited to primary and self-published sources, etc). I'm kind of hesitant to focus on tone personally, because I still want to check other sections for coherency, sources, formatting, and so on. And it also feels like a squishy part of the MoS. Some articles, e.g. Cottingley Fairies, have reached featured article status with what seem to me highly narrative structures. Once the other issues are resolved a few thoughts are to maybe put it up for the COPYEDITORS? Or perhaps ping an editor familiar with the article, if, , or anybody in recent discussions are interested. Rjjiii  (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking over your draft, I notice you've cut the mention of a teletype operator who plausibly claims she was ordered to end transmission of a news story about the debris. This is one of the "sticky wickets" I've struggle with --  it's obviously a cover-up DID occur; Multiple civilians report being told not to talk about the debris.   These "cover-up" events almost-certainly did occur in '47, but at the same time, they weren't widely known until they were featured in the FRINGE publications of the 80s.
 * Where do we cover the "cover-up" of the Mogul crash? In 1947 when it happened, or in the 1980s when it was publicly revealed? Feoffer (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to give a proper answer to that when I'm on my laptop and can better check the sources. I'll see how the most reliable of the sources locate it. From memory, I snipped Sleppy from 1947 because Pflock Korff was giving this really nuanced explanation that she did have that job, it was possible, but she didn't give any statements until decades after the incident and Pflock  Korff could find no way to corroborate the operator beyond her word. The other person in the phone call (again from memory) apparently refused to get in any way more involved with Roswell stuff.
 * Ultimately though, I don't plan to merge anything back in without consensus. I'm happy to be wrong and am just trying to get a ball rolling. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [Korff not Pflock] 02:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've moved the Sleppy material to the 90s when she was interviewed and became part of the lore. The rest of your sandbox looks good to me. Feoffer (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. There's a lot going on here, and I'll try to help out when able. I note that I agree with the comments below, namely that the article currently lacks an encyclopedic tone. Well written, yes, but the tone needs to be changed a bit, and that should involve condensing much of the material and (IMO) removing some of it. I'll try to find some time to contribute to the process. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think Feoffer is (wrongly) crafting a story using evocative writing and transitions designed to engage the reader. The overall impression is of a single, expert author with a distinctive flair and point of view at work And the section headers are over-explained, e.g. "Mortician's second-hand claim of a Roswell alien autopsy (1989)" instead of simply "Glen Dennis". "Jesse Marcel renews interest in Roswell (1978)" instead of simply "Renewed interest" etc. Encyclopedic writing need not be clumsy, but it's much much simpler and more starkly factual. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I implemented your proposed changes for section headings. I do wonder a bit about whether "Glenn Dennis" is an appropriate section heading though -- new readers will likely know of Dennis's claims but not know his name when perusing TOC. Feoffer (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well new readers or not, TOC and headings are not meant to be a substitute for reading the text. Focus on laying out a dry exposition of facts, not telling a story that builds from section to section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I yield to others judgement, I'm the one who implemented your suggestion.  But is "Glenn Dennis" really the best heading? Wouldn't a heading that mentions mortician and autopsy be more infomative? Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, section headers need not be summaries of the section. Readers are expected to read further. The Attack on Pearl Harbor article is a good example. Note the first section is not "Japan and US: diplomacy fails, suspicions rise, actions considered", but simply "Diplomacy". Of course I'll go with whatever consensus decides. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Instability a problem for this being a Good Article
There is a lot of commendable working going on to make this a good article. My concern is that no matter how much great work is done today, this particular article will always attract nutters in large numbers who will add nonsense to it tomorrow (metaphorically speaking). I'm sure several editors will continue to watch the article closely, and fix inappropriate changes as quickly as they can, but there will always be a lot of such changes. For more than most GAs, there will be a lot of times when this article stops being a GA, albeit briefly. I'm not entirely comfortable about that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is semi-protected, which should prevent the worst of that. If Homeopathy can become a GA, and Assassination of John F. Kennedy FA, then maybe there's hope for us all? Bon courage (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Son of Pushing towards GA
I am going to start this by noting that the article is well written. Absolutely. No question about it. If it was expanded into a magazine article someplace, I would definitely read it, and perhaps even use it as source material. But as I wrote above, I believe the article currently lacks the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia entry. Much of the content, which often highlights content that in my opinion are tangential or topical minutiae, can be either condensed or removed. The sandbox entry posted by Rjjiii here is a good step in that direction, and perhaps that's a model for achieving edits going forward. Relatedly, I fully recognize that given the amount of time and effort that some editors have expended creating the current article, boldly altering the article might not, at present, be an optimal approach. Instead, I offer here some of my broad thoughts and suggestions. Specific edits can come later, dependent of course on how these broad suggestions are received - I am not going to engage in edit wars or acrimonious debates here. I also admit that achieving GA status is not of particular interest to me for this (or any) article, but there's certainly nothing wrong with that goal, and perhaps these suggestions might help in that effort.

In the section "Events of 1947," the subsection "'Flying disc' craze" can be deleted. The other subsections, "Project Mogul," "Debris recovered," and "'Flying disk' debunked" can be combined into a single, untitled set of paragraphs, with considerable condensation of content.

The section "Roswell forgotten (1947–1978)" should be re-titled to something like "1948-1978," as 'forgotten' is clearly not an accurate descriptor.

The sections "Renewed interest (1978)" and "Roswell in UFO conspiracy theories (1978–present)" can be combined into something along the lines of "1978-present." The subsections therein, such as "The Roswell Incident (1980) by Berlitz and Moore," "Competing accounts and schism," and "Air Force response (1994–1997) and aftermath" could all be significantly condensed if not removed, particularly the first of those. This article is about the Roswell incident itself, not the subsequent books/articles/interviews/debates. Yet such subsequent material is given exceptionally high, and perhaps undue, profile in the current article.

Lastly, I note that about 10% of the article (that is, 10% of the references) is sourced directly to the Saler et al. book (UFO Crash at Roswell). Indeed, that source is used throughout as not just an authority, but THE authority for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Maybe it should be. But I suggest that we consider reducing reliability on that source, as several paragraphs currently feel like a recapitulation of the book, and not all of it seems WP:DUE. Two examples of statements referenced to that book, that are treated here as hard conclusions but perhaps should not be, include: "Two key cultural changes influenced the Roswell narrative" and "This version of the myth began the elevation of Marcel's narrative above that of Cavitt." Such prose makes for fun reading, but I do not believe it is encyclopedic.

So, sling those arrows. I am not going to touch this article until you all go Saint Sebastian on me. Or is that to come later? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the excellent observations and feedback. Thoughts:
 * This article is about the Roswell incident itself, not the subsequent books/articles/interviews/debates.  Well, this gets to the heart of the matter -- from my perspective, the article is about the  myth / conspiracy theory.  "The Roswell Incident" isn't a phrase from the 1940s, it's a term from the conspiracy literature and popular culture of the 1980 and 90s.   Helping our readers to understand the evolution of the myth, and the way it incorporated obviously-hoaxed elements, is a powerful tool in the toolbelt to equip the reader to understand FRINGE conspiracy theories.   That said, despite the differences in approaches, I find myself agreeing with your suggestions.
 * It's been in the back of my mind for a long time that we need to go collapse the events of 1947 into fewer/one sections.   Some of them are literally 1-para sections.   We can't delete all mention of the ongoing disc hysteria but we don't need a dedicated section.
 * 'forgotten' is clearly not an accurate descriptor I think it's mostly accurate, but our text obviously needs to make that more clear. So far as I'm aware, Roswell was NOT discussed in UFO circles AT ALL from fall 47-78.  "Forgotten" might not be the best word, because it wasn't literally "forgotten" by the participant/witnesses.  I don't think it'd be good to just list the dates as a section heading and leave the reader to just guess what the significance of that epoch is.
 * If Rjjiii concurs, it'd be fine to move the Renewed Interest into the UFO conspiracy theories section.  I separated the two because Marcel wasn't really a conspiracy theorist in the sense of dead alien bodies or crashed flying saucers -- he just said the weather balloon story was a cover and sort of "mused" in late age that it might have been extraterrestrial.  But he was being interviewed by Friedman, who's certainly in the fullblown UFO conspiracy theory camp.
 * I don't have the best handle on Competing Account and Schisms, and there's lot of room for improvement. The latter parts of the article seem ripe for condensation and farming to subarticles.   The entire book about Stalin-Mengele seems UNDUE to me.  I will defend the Alien Autopsy material, which grew to become a central element of Roswell lore and popular culture and was completely debunked.
 * Saler et al is just what I happened to have open in front of me when I wrote some of the passages -- there's an abundance of supporting sources.  Rjjiii and I have already added supporting sources] for the specific points you raised.
 * Thanks for your truly great feedback! I feel like Rjjiii "has the ball" and I'll let them take the lead, but I have no arrows to sling lol.   :) Feoffer (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

First, many thanks to for taking this in a peer review kind of direction. I have made a couple of edits based on the feedback, as I have written some of the noted material. For example, I introduced the "This version of the myth" language after I noticed a section that used low-quality sources. I've tried to go back and make the section more objective, and expand the field of sources. And thanks to for inviting/enduring all of this scrutiny. The research that's gone into writing this has to have been a great deal of work. I appreciate the faith you're putting in me but when you say I have the ball, please feel welcome to be bold and continue editing the article. I think you're currently the author of nearly half the content.

I'll offer much commentary and observation on what I think the article needs to improve. I hope none of this comes off as an invitation to "acrimonious debate".
 * I'm fine with moving Renewed Interest into the conspiracy section. Marcel is not exactly a conspiracy theorist, but reliable sources frame his interviews as part of the foundation for all the conspiracy theories.
 * Regarding the flying disc craze: Something about this has always been in the article, going back to the 2007ish rewrite. Nearly all major reliable sources include it for context. I expanded this when checking the sources for it, but have no objection to it being condensed, even aggressively down. The key points in order of prominence in the reliable sources are [a] flying discs were a new concept, [b] everyone was reporting them, and [c] the modern idea of "ufo=alien spaceship" didn't exist yet. (Some people did think they were aliens early on, but the leading early idea was an experimental and foreign aircraft.) Points a and b could be knocked down into a single sentence for 1947. Point c should be mentioned, but doesn't need to be mentioned in the 1947 section necessarily. If there's consensus for that direction, I'll update the sandbox draft, to be a 1947 draft combining all sections.
 * Regarding the books: I find reliable sources talk about the incident almost as two separate things: a 1947 balloon crash and a pop-culture mythology that developed around it. For a quick way to check this out, look at how Gildenberg (2003) visually breaks it into two separate timelines one for the real Roswell incident and one for the Roswell myth. If this isn't something coming across, perhaps that is an issue in its own right. The one book that every source places weight on is The Roswell Incident (1980), noting how Roswell had been largely dormant until Friedman interviewed Marcel. Korff mentions "7 major books" on conspiracy theories but not all sources discuss every book. Also, nearly all major sources written post-1997 discuss the two Air Force books.
 * As for removing books or other cultural references, two stick out to me. Body Snatchers in the Desert (2005) by Redfern is not discussed in the major sources about Roswell. Some may mention him and he's discussed briefly in a few books about conspiracies. I'm thinking that section could be moved to Redfern's article, and maybe this article could have just a linked mention of Redfern somewhere? And I've been unable to find a good way to retain Witness to Roswell (2007). No book reviews on Witness or The Ultimate Cold Case give enough secondary coverage to explain what happened with Haut. From primary sources, it seems that Schmitt interviewed Haut, wrote the document, sent the document to Haut, and Haut signed it without any changes. Perhaps some of the material could be moved to a Donald Schmitt (ufologist) article, but I think for now it should be removed. If there are no objections, I could begin moving and removing both of those sections.
 * The diagram: I like the idea of giving readers a conceptual map. I think the current version lacks specific citations and a key/legend. It is cited to two books. I'm thinking the proper footnote would look something like:  using duplicate citations from the article's body text. After reading more of the sources, I came away with questions about the diagram. [a] What do the colors indicate? The pink disc craze box is labeled, but I'm not sure why, for example, some events are blue and some purple. [b] What do the arrows indicate? I thought "influence" at first, but Aztec (1949) and Dubose (1991) are both discussed in the USAF books. Feoffer, if you would be okay with this, I'd like to revisit the diagram (or the creation of a diagram in general) when the article approaches a more stable state.
 * Sources: In one way it's probably silly to comment on something I intend to fix, but there are still a few problematic sources in the article. Rodeghier (1992) and Printy (1999) lack a reliable publisher. One of the news sources looks fringe. There are some I haven't checked but intend to.
 * Ufology: I know a few people have commented about condensing the article. I like context so this is less of a concern to me. One area that potentially sticks out for condensing is anywhere a claim from a ufologist is introduced and considered. For example, the section "First claim of alien bodies (1980)" seems like it could be condensed way down because the length seems to come from analyzing the ufology claims within the Wikipedia article, but I don't know if we need to do that. Can't we just cite the sources where the analysis takes place? says nobody can corroborate Barnett,  says there is no proof of Barnett's bodies,  says that Roswell Incident reproduced elements of the discredited Aztec crash,  says no first-hand witnesses saw bodies and that the story was updated: "It is important to realize that the original story comprised this single chain of events. In 1947, there were no reports regarding alien bodies, autopsies, or multiple crash sites. Nor do these original accounts ascribe magical properties to the debris, such as imperviousness or the ability to liquefy like the evil robot from the motion picture Terminator 2. None of the original impact site witnesses reported bodies. Other New Mexico saucer legends had long since adopted the alien bodies convention when, 40 years after the fact, secondary witnesses began updating Roswell to include the first such descriptions." And so on.

If there's no objection, after cleaning up the early parts of the article, I could go on to the next section, again doing a sandbox draft. And, Feoffer, if you're willing, I'd like to get your input section by section because on the one hand, I don't want to come off like I'm dismantling your work and on the other hand I think you have a massive amount of knowledge on this subject. If anyone else would want to participate in that, I could also send out a ping each time I open a sandbox revision draft.

And again thanks to all for participating in this discussion, Rjjiii  (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * All looks good to me. Your formula for condensing 1947 looks great, we really don't need to linger on it as much as I did. I don't think Redfern or the Haut book do much for the reader, they're sort of narrative dead-ends than didn't really go anywhere.
 * As the article adapts, the "conceptual map" may have to adapt with it, and I'm happy to help update or recreate something else going forward. Currently, there's a "mainstream history narrative" to Roswell (labelled in blue) that runs from Fu-Go to Mogul to Roswell to Marcel the USAF reports. That narrative has no bodies (dead or alive), no flying saucers, and is well supported by RS.  Meanwhile, a FRINGE mythology (red) born out of pranks and hoaxes developed, featuring bodies that move from place to place with every telling.  Arrows would be descent, not influence --  Marcel influences EVERYBODY, but only DuBose and the Air Force reports can truly be called consistent with his observations;  Everyone else is up to their knees in corpses from Frank Scully's book.
 * Finally, one little item to put on the wishlist.  As look you through the sources and work on the article, keep this in mind:  the FuGo balloons were covered up and censored during World War Two, both to prevent a panic but also to prevent a foreign power from learning of their weapon's success.  The reader will have a better understanding of the Air Force covering up the potentially-foreign balloon from Roswell if they are reminded that the military had a standing policy of covering up potentially-foreign balloons during WW2.  There's lot of sources connecting FuGo to Roswell, but I could never find a source to connect those precise dots.
 * Great work, keep it up.   Feoffer (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Check out:

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox

To invite contributions and create a better edit record, I've made a subpage of this talk page (and redirected my user sandbox). I hope this provides a space to heavily edit sections but keep the reader-facing article stable. I've written a lot and so will step back for a minute to let consensus form. Regarding the FuGo balloons, I haven't seen that Fugo–saucer–Roswell censorship connection made explicit. I can give a breakdown, of what I've found if you're planning to continue hunting for it. And thanks again, Rjjiii  (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The sandbox looks good!  I really like restoring "first summer of the Cold War" as a lead sentence and putting Mogul first.    Great work summarizing the flying disc wave and how it affected Brazel.   It works for me!
 * You don't need to write up anything about Fugo -- just keep an eye out if you should ever happen to see someone point out symmetries.  Keel got close, but not close enough. :)   Feoffer (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"A scholarly consensus emerged &hellip;"
We say this, and is another case of where I am concerned about the gap between source text and what Wikipedia says. Sourcing for statements about consensus requires WP:RS/AC. How does the Olmsted source WP:VERIFY this text? Bon courage (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4475615 In 2020, the article just straight up reported the Mogul explanation as fact:
 * "The military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device—nuclear test monitoring—and instead inform the public that the crash was of a weather balloon"
 * Out of my own concerns about WP:V, I attributed it to a "scholarly consensus" rather than complete metaphysical certitude.  Digging through history further, we find softer language that we might want to revert back to.
 * The military decided to conceal the true purpose of the crashed device – most likely a massive series of top secret nuclear test monitoring balloons with reflectors from Project Mogul – and instead inform the public that the crash was of a weather balloon.
 * Feoffer (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the source is certain, Wikipedia is certain and needs to WP:ASSERT. But you agree the source says nothing about "scholarly consensus" (an odd concept for this topic!) Bon courage (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Chopped the objectionable language in favor of naming the scholars.  Olmsted's conclusions are Olmsted's.  Not consensus facts. -- we can't assert one scholar's very informed opinion as if it's fact:   The entire article would lose all credibility in the minds of even skeptics if it falsely asserted Olmsted's conclusion was universally-agreed-upon fact -- it's not. Mainstream opinion concurs that Olmsted's conclusion is correct, but it can't be misrepresented as historical fact, as if the USAF declassified documents revealing they knew all along it was Mogul.
 * In particular the statement "The military decided" is a completely-unverifiable claim about the mental states of historic personages. Olmsted offers no sources for this conclusion, because there are no sources to document the mental states of the people in 1947 who, presumably, made that decision. And Olmsted never suggests it is a historical fact, rather than a  single sentence in a well-supported, logical narrative based on a historian's informed conclusions.  Weaver & McAndrew, upon whom Olmsted depends for their conclusions, never suggest it is a historical fact either.
 * TBH, it should be obvious on its face that disputing the existence of a "scholarly consensus" for the Mogul theory is incompatible with a proposal to simply assert it as fact.   (We can, of course, assert as fact that it was not alien.) Feoffer (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Err what? It's a fact. RS says this is what happened and no RS says otherwise, so WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT apply. We even know which balloon it was (and say so as fact). This has been discussed at length before. Do we really need to return to FT/N for this? (BTW, the next text is direct against WP:RS/AC which says "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors".) Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't verify as a historic fact that it was MOGUL. Olmsted never says that, Weaver & McAndrew never say that.    We can't "fudge the math" on this article.  No one in this discussion is pro-FRINGE -- if we can verify MOGUL, there will be universal celebration;  So far, no scholar is providing proof ("showing their work") so we can demonstrate to the reader that it is a historic fact that it was MOGUL.  Please, prove me wrong, I genuinely believe it was MOGUL but I can't prove it to a NPOV reader yet -- help me! :)  Feoffer (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Olmsted does say that ("When one of these balloons smashed into the sands of the New Mexico ranch, the military decided to hide the project's real purpose.") (also the New York Times, FWIW). This was discussed and decided many years ago. Bon courage (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Olmsted narrative includes that sentence, but it makes absolutely no arguments for its veracity beyond a hand-waving footnote to Weaver & McAndrew who, of course, never conclusively identified it as MOGUL.   Imagine me as the grizzled old Newspaper Editor or District Attorney who says "Sorry, kid, but ya don't have the sources to prove it... Keep digging.".     We'd love nothing more than to prove to our readers it was MOGUL, but waving our hands and pretending Olmsted et al have a crystal ball won't convince anyone. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I imagine you as a anonymous Wikipedia editor with no standing to decide the facts, and I imagine Olmsted as.a history professor writing an academic book published by a University press. Which do you think Wikipedia is bound to follow? I have posted to WP:FT/N for a wider view. Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's really inappropriate to personalize this and to use FT/N as a "brigand threat" as you have. (and I'm very pro-FT/N in general)   I don't think you really believe anyone in this discussion is Pro-FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but input is useful on how to deal with FRINGE material (i.e. the implication we don't know what crashed at Roswell despite sources saying otherwise). Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * implication we don't know
 * Who said that?  Scholars know. Feoffer (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just scholars. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, without the personalizing (which was provoked by "Imagine me as"): Olmsted is a RS. We do not second-guess RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You were obviously solicited into this discussion by Bon.  You grossly misrepresent (to the point of bad faith) my argument that Olmsted's narrative is not supported as historical fact (nor does Olmsted claim it is) Feoffer (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

break
In fact the whole article is rather confused on this. The opening sentence asserts as fact "The Roswell incident centers on the July 1947 recovery of metallic and rubber debris from a crashed military balloon", then by the last sentence of the lede it's more equivocal, mentioning "explanations" and "links". Then by the article body we're into suggesting it's just the view of "scholars". Really the article needs to be plain & consistent about this core fact. We know from RS the exact type of balloon and where and when it was launched so why the difficulty? Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Bon, we're on the same team and I'm doing my best. We all agree it's not a flippin alien.   But the jury is skeptical, and if we "over-sell it", we'll lose 'em.    All the king's scholars and all the king's men agree it was MOGUL -- that's good enough.   Let's present that and rest our case -- we'll win 'em all over. Feoffer (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think being coy to try and be persuasive is a bad idea. We have policy WP:YESPOV and guidance WP:RS/AC on this type of issue; we need to follow those. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeatedly reached out with AGF, but you have only personal attacks and fulfilled threats for bad-faith briganding.  I genuinely appreciate all you've done to fight FRINGE.   Feoffer (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As you have been told by an admin, there are no personal attacks. So continuing to make that allegation is unhelpful. I don't know what 'bad-faith briganding' is meant to be but it doesn't sound good. Rather than edit war here, posting to a relevant noticeboard is of course best practice when it comes to WP:DR. I am quite interested in seeing this article progress to WP:GA, but it won't happen if it drifts away from the WP:PAGS, now will it? Bon courage (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't know that to tell ya, guy. Olmsted's one sentence, devoid of footnotes, doesn't get us there.    I wanna get there too, but we're not there yet, and me pretending otherwise does no one any favors. Feoffer (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From NPOV: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice". This is the case here. Bon courage (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine by me if you can produce a consensus of RSes that says it's uncontested MOGUL; but I know this subject inside and out, but I can't produce that.  Here's what we 'can' produce:  a consensus of RSes that says its not alien and almost certainly MOGUL.  That a winning jury verdict -- but push it beyond the bounds of WP:V and we fail.  There's a SMALL chance it might really just been a weather balloon, or some other damn freak thing.  None of the historians say they got the goods, the point is it's not alien. Feoffer (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need "a consensus of RSes" (although we in fact have one, if consensus is defined as the absence of substantive opposition). We are bound by policy to assert what we have. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Olmsted's one sentence, devoid of footnotes, doesn't get us there. Maybe I'm missing something. How is this not conclusive? How is this not conclusive? Etc., etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We're trying to verify that people in July 1947 decided to do a coverup (as opposed to merely failing to identify the balloon). The Air Force report argues that Roswell personnel had no need to know and that Ramey and staff may not have known. We are foreclosing, without evidence, the possibility that nobody in the military knew it was MOGUL until '94. Feoffer (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The question of whether the cover-up was 'decided' or not is a different one. What was at issue was whether we could assert as fact that the balloon that crashed was a MOGUL one. I am glad that now seems resolved and we are moving on to other matters. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)