Talk:Roswell incident

Clean up work in sandbox

Clean up: 'Weather balloon' as cover story for Project Mogul

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox ^{[ starting point permanent link ]}

Hello all, I've merged the section I was working on from the sandbox into the article. Considering the interactions above, I've moved that section into the sandbox to give us more room to edit. Regarding previous discussions, check out the section Reference scratchpad. I've started two bundled citations. The nuance I see in reliable sources post-1997 is whether they are talking about a military program, Mogul overall, or Flight number 4 specifically. I don't think there is a reliable sources that casts any doubt on it being from a military program. Many sources outright say it is Mogul, and the ones that don't are citing someone who says it is or saying it likely is. For Flight 4 specifically, there is less certainty, and some sources that do outright say it is Flight 4, cite Charles B. Moore who says it "seems likely ".

Feoffer, do you think there is enough in the existing sources quoted in the sandbox[1] plus the Smithsonian and NYT sources linked by LuckyLouie to call it Mogul? If not, what is the threshold you're looking to pass? Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, the current question is can we verify that "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". So far as I can tell, that it's not verifiable as fact. Note the Smithsonian scholar's quote (emphasis mine): “Apparently, it was better from the Air Force’s perspective that there was a crashed ‘alien’ spacecraft out there than to tell the truth". The Air Force source consistently attributes conclusions to the Weaver & McAndrew report, nobody asserts it as fact, not even Olmsted tbh. I'm very open to alternate wordings, but we can't declare a decision took place -- we can say "scholars conclude", we can go stronger with "scholarly consensus" even. We could even say the military "apparently" decided -- we can source that. Feoffer (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think consensus is clear we can assert as fact that is a MOGUL balloon and the military decided to conceal that. Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Does this seem more verifiable, "The military concealed the true purpose of the crashed device – nuclear test monitoring – and instead informed the public that the crash was of a weather balloon."? That's just cutting "decide" out. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Weaver's conclusion section is clear (emphasis mine):

• "All available official materials, although they do not directly address Roswell per se, indicate that the most likely source of the wreckage recovered from the Braze1 Ranch was from one of the Project MOGUL balloon trains."
• "Although the Air Force did not find documented evidence that Gen. Ramey was directed to espouse a weather balloon in his press conference, he may have done so because he was either aware of Project MOGUL and was trying to deflect interest from it, or he readily perceived the material to be a weather balloon based on the identification from his weather officer, Irving Newton."
• "It appears that the identification of the wreckage as being part of a weather balloon device, as reported in the newspapers at the time, was based on the fact that there was no physical difference in the radar targets and the neoprene balloons (other than the numbers and configuration) between MOGUL balloons and normal weather balloons."

Weaver is clear -- they might not have concealed anything, they might have just not connected it to Mogul. Hell, it might not be connected to Mogul, though all scholars agree that's "most likely". Feoffer (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, go the secondary source and simply WP:ASSERT what it says. That would be policy compliant. Bon courage (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you've editwarred to do just that. You should self-rv back to the stable version while we discuss this. Feoffer (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bon courage, Hob Gadling and Rjj. In this case, the secondary sources support a simple WP:ASSERTion. Feoffer, you may feel you know this subject inside and out, but it may be time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Bon courage As a matter of habit. I appreciate the work you two do fighting fringe, but deletions, editwarring, and frankly bullying don't write an encyclopedia. Weaver says most likely -- we don't get to misrepresent his conclusion. You can't just fudge or yada yada over WP:V. It might have been a non-MOGUL military balloon and the entire article falls apart if we lie to the reader on this point. Feoffer (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree the stick needs to be dropped on this. Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the problem here. I'm not the first to object to WP:ASSERTing this material as fact, I won't be the last. Nobody gets to GA by failing WP:V. Feoffer (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is what it is. There has been no sustainable opposition to asserting the crashed balloon was a MOGUL one since the Olmsted source was in play. Before that, there was a push to keep the article suggestive about 'an object' crashing. As you know, on many WP:FRINGE articles there will be periodic objections to neutral text, and I would expect that to happen here too. That, in part, is why getting to WP:GA is desirable, better to 'lock in' the desired neutrality. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if editors agreed to assert as fact that it was MOGUL (we don't), the current text that asserts as fact the the military consciously concealed that fact. You don't get to GA by making up history as you go along. Feoffer (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity; maybe read WP:1AM? The question of concealment is a different one, and I don't think there is consensus on that because it has not been much discussed. Personally, I have no firm view on how the sources fall on that matter. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The question of concealment is a different one, and I don't think there is consensus on that because it has not been much discussed. Personally, I have no firm view on how the sources fall on that matter.

I appreciate that very much -- but that's exactly what I have been debating. The disputed sentence begins "The military had decided at the time to conceal" and its NOT verified. We can attribute that conclusion to Olmsted, to a list of scholars, to scholarly consensus in general, or any other verbiage. With the excellent Smithsoninan source Louie dug up, we could even say they "apparently" decided to cover it up. But Weaver is clear -- they might have just taken one look at it, assumed it was a weather balloon, and tossed it in the garbage; People at Roswell didn't have a need to know about MOGUL, the people in Texas might not have either.

In a larger sense, I don't think Wikipedia articles should "assert" the material they're trying to "prove" -- it's bad writing and it's bad education, even in subjects of complete certitude like math. In History, like Geometry, a true assertion can't be marked "correct" unless you can show the "proof". What does it buy us to assert as fact that it could NOT have been a weather balloon or other military balloon? Weaver doesn't exclude that possibility, why should we? It certainly doesn't help us to concede to the UFO nuts that the only two possibilities are MOGUL and aliens. Feoffer (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Weaver is one old outlier source and his co-author went on to clarify this was deffo a MOGUL balloon. Any general push not to assert historical fact on Wikipedia is extremely ill-advised, and would feed (for example) Holocaust denial (so yes, it is fact Jews were gassed at Auschwitz in large numbers), 9/11 truther narratives (so yes, it is a fact hijacked planes flew into buildings causing their collapse), and so on. Just align with the WP:BESTSOURCES and all will be well. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright well, setting aside the theoretical; On this article, how would you feel about us NOT asserting as fact that a conscious decision to conceal occurred in 1947. You say you have no firm view on whether that occurred, would you like to brainstorm alternate wording for the disputed sentence? Feoffer (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's could be as simple as "the military apparently decided..." and citing it to Louie's Smithsonian source. Feoffer (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Goldberg flat out refers to "the 1994 admission that the weather balloon story was a cover for the secret Mogul Project". And the current text is currently well-verified by Olmsted. If by the "Smithsonian" source we mean Peebles, I don't think that is relevant since it apparently was written before the MOGUL information came to light. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, Louie hooked us up. It's from 2017 [2]:

“Apparently, it was better from the Air Force’s perspective that there was a crashed ‘alien’ spacecraft out there than to tell the truth,” says Roger Launius, the recently-retired curator of space history at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.
“A flying saucer was easier to admit than Project Mogul,” Launius adds, a chuckle in his voice. “And with that, we were off to the races.”

Feoffer (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't tell us anything about the genesis of the weather balloon story, does it? Bon courage (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a little uncomfy how it "anthropomorphizes" the Air Force -- I would love to prove that Ramey had been read into MOGUL and knew to cover it up, but I can't connect those dots yet, Weaver specifically admits Ramey might not have known, because the actual components are physically identical to weather balloons, raising the possibility that it wasn't a cover-up so much as semantics -- MOGUL flights really did include a "weather balloon", even though their purpose wasn't to monitor weather. I feel like this nuance is getting lost when we just look at the Olmsted popular history book declare a coverup and adopt its narrative as consensus fact. Feoffer (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying they used the weather balloon story for a cover story, without saying they 'decided to', citing Olmsted and/or Goldberg. BTW, Olmsted's book is not really pop history, but a monograph published by the Academic division of OUP.[3] Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a big step in the right direction -- "cover story" is well sourced, "decide to conceal" is not.

My point about Olmsted is just that she gives us no way to verify her conclusions (insofar as they differ from Weaver, who shows his work). Feoffer (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a distinction without a difference really: either they 'decided' to cook something up as cover, or they 'decided' to let merely mistaken weather balloon story run as it served for the purposes of cover up. So, I'm easy about which form of words is used. Bon courage (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool.

Yeah, it's a distinction that doesn't make a lot of difference to me personally either, but I know that to a certain subset of readers, people with a certain type of susceptibility, it can be a big difference. It won't disturb me one wit if it was a planned cover-up operation -- I actually want to find sources to prove it, and hope to add more quotes from Weaver to support that conclusion. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Weaver source should be used in this article. Rather, independent secondary scholarship should be preferred. Bon courage (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Weaver source should be used in this article. Can you clarify this opinion: Weaver shouldn't be used in this precise way or it literally shouldn't be used anywhere in the article?? It's been stably cited as RS in the article since time immemorial.

While I have you -- do you have any opinions on how we should cover the teletype coverup claims and the death threat claims, or any good sources to add to that convo? Rj felt like the sourcing on that was very weak and we moved it the sections about FRINGE. It seems to be very likely a proactive coverup (as opposed to a mere cover story) DID occur, but damn if I can prove it. Please be on the lookout for source that do. Feoffer (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning to not using it at all (except maybe to touch in the odd detail). The 'Roswell incident' itself includes the documents/statements made by the military, some of which are mis/disinformation. It is not our place to determine which are which, but we can use secondary WP:SCHOLARSHIP looking back on all the material and offering a settled and independent view – the "accepted knowledge" that Wikipedia wants to relay. Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Bon, we have VERY different things we want out of wikipedia articles, but C'est La Vie. :)

The idea of citing the bulk of this article without depending on Weaver is sort of blowing my mind right now, because literally EVERYONE and their brother cites Weaver as the gold standard. I can't even fairly respond to that suggestion until I've taken the time to really think about it :) lol. In principle, I'm on board to help find and add independent sourcing, but in practice I think we'll find all roads lead back to the 1995 Air Force report; '97 never contradicted 95, it tried to explain the bodies (that no one in 1947 ever actually saw) might have been crash test dummies -- which is more likely than alien bodies of course. Feoffer (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

literally EVERYONE and their brother cites Weaver as the gold standard ← that's cool then: use everyone and their brother as sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy too when possible -- but when they cite Weaver, we should also ref Weaver so they can click through to him too, right? I guess what I'm getting at is that you're certainly not denying 1995 AF report is a RS, right? lol. When I first read your words, I think my hair caught on fire, but experience had taught me it's prob a miscommunication lol Feoffer (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's reliable for what it says. Whether it's accepted knowledge or not relied/relies on the reaction of others. It's fine to quote it alongside independent sources. A warning flat would be any delta between Weaver and historians, or if Wikipedia paid attention to stuff in the USAF reports that the rest of the world had ignored. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good answers, we see eye to eye on that, I get what you were saying now.  :) Yes, Weaver could be fruitful for cherrypicking, and whenever possible we should take cues from (and cite) independent sourcing to demonstrate DUE weight, even if we supplementary link to the '95 report. I'm totally on board to help with that effort as we push to GA. (I just couldn't fathom writing an article if Weaver wasn't a RS lol). Feoffer (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

any delta Small world, I use that term too. Engineering / physics background? Feoffer (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Did some maths at one time. Roswell is interesting case from a WP:PSTS perspective. If one views the 'primary' material as including the military reports and the UFOlogist lore, then the secondary material is that which looks back on that whole big bundle of stuff. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Did some maths at one time Yeah I started off with History but took to maths like waterfowl to water. Funny how often I heard of people like us who share that overlap -- they seem like disparate fields, but they're both about putting puzzle pieces together

Strictly speaking the 90s reports don't qualify as primary sources to the events of 1947 (wouldn't that be wonderful if they were, lol? Historian's paradise, if the 95 report was written in 47! lol) . But I hear ya, we should lean on the most recent sources when possible, citing the 90s sources as supplementary when appropriate :)

Someday, in a far off future when the article is GA, I really do want to revisit the dispute about whether it might be possible to suggest to the readers that it really was just a weather balloon or other non-MOGUL military balloon. Not to be weird, but it's a little bit "pro-FRINGE" to suggest it couldn't possibly have been a weather balloon. Feoffer (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I synced the sandbox to stable (crosses fingers) live article,[4] and I've condenses and reorganized much but tried to retain the language on the controversial points above. Changes are pretty big, so feel free to offer feedback or directly improve the sandbox draft. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You've got a gift! The language looks great to me. Feoffer (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Feoffer. I've put it into the live version. (Along with alt text for images and 2 sources to cite later on belief and tourism.)

Also, I have just realized when testing the page at different zoom levels that when condensing an earlier section I accidentally removed Template:1947 flying disc craze when removing the section header. The only reason I haven't put it back in yet, is because I'm not sure the best placement to reduce stacking. At full zoom, the Ramey photo is already pushed down to the Aztec section, but I'm hesitant to move, remove, or combine any images. I'll trust wherever you place it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I chopped the image from the sidebar (on this page), so hopefully that will fix collisions. Feoffer (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup: lead

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox ^{[ starting point permanent link ]}

Something Bon courage noted above was the ambiguity in the lead, so I've copied:

• The current lead. This most reflects the current body text.
• And several old leads to borrow from:
• The lead from 2014 when Bon did major cleanup. This is a good example of ways we can get shorter and clearer.
• The lead from 2007 after Canada Jack did a massive rewrite while openly opposed by a professional ufologist who declared C.J. to be his nemesis, openly opposed C.J., and forked a shadow article of memories. (Was it really just like this then?)
• The lead from 2013 last edited by Invertzoo. Gulyas (2014) quotes a few paragraphs from this lead as a summary of how Roswell has become a significant part of the culture absent evidence. (Courtesy to ping to let the editor know they were cited by Gulyas.)

I'm thinking the best next steps are:

1. Do a really clear first sentence to say that the "Roswell incident" refers to [a] a 1947 balloon debris cleanup in New Mexico, and [b] the myths that have developed around it.
2. Condense, clarify, and just clean up the existing text, minus the final paragraph. That stuff seems mostly okay already.
3. Probably rewrite the final paragraph, maybe stealing some phrases from circa 2013. The explanation for adding that stuff in the edit summary, "insert summary paragraph to address pop culture influence"[5] is fine, but the wording needs work. Eg, a description of pop culture shouldn't come off as contradicting reported events, scholarship, research, and so on.

The lead gets a lot more attention, so I may ping a wider group before pushing anything live, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I trend toward verbosity, so ledes are my Achilles's heel. Everything else you've done looks great, I'm sure this will too. We can cut the gray alien refer in the lede since we cut that section, we could add a super brief summation of the newly-polished Aztec material. Thank you for all your incredible work, we'll be at GA in no time thanks to your efforts. Feoffer (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, thanks! I think I'm close to done on the lead draft. I've added Aztec in a brief mention. Regarding verbosity, the word count is only about 20 words shorter and everything cut was from the final paragraph. The parts about 1947 and conspiracy theories are likely a few words longer than before, but I don't have much room to trim without removing content that is given major attention in the article's body. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead in the Sandbox is a significant improvement. From my readings (i.e., WP:MOS:LEAD and the subsections therein) we are not obligated to make it four paragraphs long, or to include citations, or to mention everything in the body, or to painstakingly include every single element of "context." So long as it presents (from the Nutshell description) a summary of the body "with appropriate weight," the mission, so to speak, will be accomplished. When I have a chance tomorrow I will take a stab at condensing it further - I will create a dummy section in the Sandbox 'article' for my version. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I have added a modified version of the lead to the sandbox. The changes obviously reflect my opinion of how an encyclopedic article should be structured: the lead is a brief introduction free of nitty-gritty details, akin to the abstract of a scientific paper; specific details/reports/claims/concepts/tangential relationships/personalities/sequelae/etc. are in the article body (in this case, in abundance) along with their reliable citations. I believe readers are sufficiently capable of reading the entire article, and clicking on the reliable sources therein, if they are interested in the material and/or want additional information. The citation in Rjj's version of the lead seems helpful and appropriate, so it was retained. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the cutting of proper nouns in general. Ramey, Friedman, Highdive, Berlitz, Moore, The X-Files, and Star Trek are probably all names we don't need in the lede.

Marcel is an integral name, there's no understanding the article without it, we may as well introduce in the lede. We also do need to mention the 1980 book by name, that's where the article title comes from, after all. The ongoing disc hysteria needs a mention -- you can't undertand Roswell without it. We also should mention the Air Force reports and date them to 94 and 97 respectively -- those details got cut. Feoffer (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

All of those details were cut because, in my opinion, that information is not necessary in the lead for anyone, be they long-standing ufologists or ignorant of the topic, to understand what this Wikipedia article is about. Regarding there's no understanding the article without it (that is, Marcel's name and book title in the lead), that is not true. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: Really appreciate it! I copied your version up to the top to work from but haven't changed much. A lot of the specific details removed (Ramey, Aztec, High Dive, X-Files) should make it much clearer to someone just trying to get the general idea.

Regarding Feoffer's notes: I've included the book title. Reliable sources mention either Marcel or (more often) the 1980 book as the starting point for the conspiracy theories. Also, if the book is not in the lead, its title is so similar to this article (The Roswell Incident (1980 book)) that it should probably be in a hatnote. Marcel and the book make almost no difference to the wording (Marcel could even just be a piped link). I added the 1947 flying disc craze as a piped link ("flying disc"). I did not add the USAF books. I think stating their relevant conclusions as unattributed facts works well in the lead. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Including the book and Marcel isn't my first choice for the lead, but I can live with it. Long live WP:CONSENSUS (and WP:COLLAB). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well! Long live collab :) Feoffer (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Tiny subtle suggestion -- can we make it clear in the lead text that The Roswell Incident is a book (as opposed to tv or movie) or perhaps a "bestseller" (if that's true). Feoffer (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary since it's linked and has a section in this article. I've gone ahead and pushed the sandbox draft live as the current discussions are now about really minor points (link vs. name Marcel, & do we say it's a book). Reliable sources note that it was influential but not a bestseller and that it was the 90s books and documentaries that reaped the rewards. (Your favorite band's favorite band.) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox looks good. My only thought:

• Obscuring the true purpose of the crashed balloon, which was nuclear testing detection, General Roger Ramey told the press that the crashed object was a conventional weather balloon. Decades later, conspiracy theories accused the government of a cover-up. There's something disharmonious about suggesting a coverup occured and then calling it a conspiracy theory to accuse the government of a coverup. Maybe intro conspiracy theory after Marcel along with the claim of ET origin, and then do Mogul? I dunno, see what JoJO thinks. In any case, much improved over current. Feoffer (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been solved. Feoffer (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Before going "live," perhaps some additional editors can provide comments/suggestions here about the alternative leads, which are available here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup: 'Alien bodies' as later hoaxes or test dummies

☛ Talk:Roswell incident/sandbox ^{[ starting point permanent link ]}

This hopefully keeps the details from the live version while moving away from a "critics say" format, to something more straightforward, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: if you don't spot any issues I'm planning to push this live. After this section, are there other areas that have issues? I'm feeling near the end of this cleanup work, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! You should be SO proud of yourself. If you have idea on a new and improved diagram, I'd be happy to try to create one based on the table of elements in Saler. If not, we could just cut it, as it's not as essential now that article has been improved so much, but I know these sorts of charts really do help a certain type of learner. Feoffer (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I've thought on ideas for visual guides, but haven't come to anything concrete. I was thinking that a timeline is the simple solution, but that leaves out a lot of context. Feel free to bring up any ideas for feedback, and I'll try to get back to you on that. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: I've tried a different organization of some of the material from your chart.[6] I would be okay with cutting the diagram. If we want to retain something like that, I don't see a way to fit it into a sidebar. A logical place could be the "Roswell as Modern Myth and Folklore" section. Perhaps a more straightforward visual aid would work as a sidebar under "Roswell conspiracy theories (1978–1994)". I had considered a timeline at one point but never had something I was really feeling good about. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

THank you for the re-organization! that's perfect -- it's easy to let the diagram go in favor of your table! Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: Glad it helped! I plan to go through the footnotes and citation templates next. I have sometimes cited what I want (a bunch of relevant pages for research) instead of what other editors/readers will need (the quickest place to verify the content they just read). I also want to double-check that I've cited the correct pages on some early edits; I started without direct access to some sources. As far as content, I think I've gone over everything I intended to. At this point, if you want to put the article up for a GA review, copyediting, or peer review, I feel ready and will gladly help with any issues other editors find. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Making an outline for Roswell conspiracy theories (1978–1994)

Feoffer, I'm looking at the section Roswell incident#Roswell conspiracy theories (1978–1994) and have uncertainties on how to best organize some of the material. Much of the writing is new and much from a decades old version,[7] that was laid out differently. I'm thinking it may be best to create an outline first on what the key points are for each section, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the old version you cite, it does seem like we lost the straightforward presentation of the books as presenting a generally consistent conspiracy theory about a crashed UFO. Textual scholarship, like Ziegler's, by its nature comes from a "splitters" not "lumpers" perspective, and it may overstate the differences between the accounts.

I think some of the important take home points are that the basic story of the Brazel ranch debris remains relatively constant albeit exaggerated, while the stories of extra crash sites and humanoid aliens were very controversial even among people who believed in the basic conspiracy theory. The story of a civil engineer, an archaeology team, and a military detail all simultaneously stumbling onto the same crash site hundred of miles away from Roswell is absurd on its face. Every version of the myth has different numbers of bodies that make up a larger portion of the tale -- Marcel says zero bodies, by Moore there's bodies 150 miles away, then bodes make to it Roswell's air field along with the debris, then the bodies actually go to the hospital for autopsy.

The section needs a lot of work -- we never really specify "what" the disagreements are about. The Majestic hoax influenced the narrative more than is captured in the current text, ditto for Glenn Dennis. So yeah, lots of room for improvements here. Feoffer (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite know how to pull it off, but I have always dreamt that this section might cover the material in two different "streams" or "threads". On the one hand, we have claims that are consistent with, and supportive of, the Project Mogul conclusion -- Marcel, DuBose, the many people who recall being told not to talk, probably even the people who report detention or threats, etc. And then, in a second, parallel-yet-intermingled thread, we have clearly fringe nonsense of every-evolving wild claims i.e. dead alien bodies. It would be great if we could present this material while still keeping those two threads clear and distinct in the minds of the reader. If we err too far on the side of "it was all crazy", the reader won't understand why Congress started asking for the real story (Mogul). Meanwhile, if we can somehow just tell the story of how the crazy stuff evolves over time, in a distinct thread, without talking about the people who obviously just witnessed Mogul, then it becomes quite obvious that the CT is an increasingly elaborate self-contradictory fairytale, not just "better detective work yielding new evidence". Feoffer (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm following now. I started tracking down reliable sources for MJ-12 and have started drafting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roswell_incident/sandbox&oldid=1195567567#Majestic_12_hoax

That is likely already too much information for here (not sure that Doty even needs to be named in this article). Feel free to pull anything from there to this article or Majestic 12. I think for MJ-12, the most clear structure is something like:

• What is it? (hoax via faked memos)
  • Who spread it? (Bill Moore in the 80s)
    • How do we know that? (not sure how much evidence is going overboard here)

And then:

• What was the MJ-12 story?
  • What did it add to the Roswell conspiracies?

I think mentioning Ziegler's versions 1 to 5 is probably confusing outside of version 1 (the Berlitz & Moore book). I'm imagining a reader dropping down to MJ-12 or Kevin Randle's book and puzzling over what the versions mean. I think version 1 is also the only one I see wider agreement on. Perhaps Ziegler's versions offer a more verifiable way to construct the diagram? Rather than descent, Ziegler is using a framework more of what does each version contribute as noted by his "(V#)" throughout chapter 1. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks great to me! and yes, Zeigler could be used to make a REALLY amazing table or image. First go round, I just tried to keep things as simple as possible and only keep debris and bodies distinct. I've replaced the old text with that from your sandbox and chopped the version numbers. Feoffer (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Outline of different sources

If it's helpful, I took notes of which novel elements Zeigler attributes to which sources: User:Feoffer/sandbox mythogenesis of roswell Feoffer (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This really helps. As far as historical elements, the only thing absent from the Wikipedia article is "Alamogordo stages balloon demonstration for press to divert attention from [Mogul debris found near] Roswell". Are there sources not involved with Charles B. Moore that say this? He wrote a chapter in that book, worked with Weaver & McAndrew, and corresponded with Pflock. I think they all include some version of this. This may be one of the few "cover-up" actions that have reliable, secondary coverage.

I don't think we'll have the space to cover every detail, but this looks like a good way to organize the Berlitz & Moore (1980) book. A lot of this can be sourced to other secondary sources as well, like the current lightning strike paragraph cited to Olmsted. I'm thinking anything from the book that can't be found in one of the secondary sources is likely out of scope. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reformatted and trimmed the existing section in the sandbox.[8] Let me know if that's looking more clear or less clear. The primary source citations are still present for quotes, but every passage cited to the Berlitz & Moore book is marked with . I'll start working on checking the secondary sources soon. Those bits may be covered in the more reliable sources but in a different way. For example, Ziegler makes note of Marcel's "nothing made on this earth" comment as an example of how Marcel was pulling elements from other crashed saucer stories (16-17). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking good to me! If I'm not mistaken, we have contemporary sourcing from 1947 on the Alamogordo balloon demonstration in connection with Roswell. (It might have been a demo at Ft Worth).

In the sandbox -- the archaeology group got cut from the 1980 book, but they'll come up again in subsequent versions. It is probably important for the reader to know that Barnett wasn't with the archaeology group in the legend and he didn't lead them there -- instead the claim is that three different groups descended on the same San Agustin site almost simultaneously.

Looking good. Feoffer (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through the parts cited only to primary sources. I need to see why the Klass cite is so many pages and then copyedit. When I update the live article, I may ping you about the archaeologists because their significance is escaping me. They just seem like this bizarre and random nameless group that are plopped all over New Mexico. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

the archaeologists because their significance is escaping me

If I'm not mistaken, Barnett and the archaeologists were a major source of schism between the Friedman camp and the Randle camp. At some point in the history, Barnett and the archaeologists get discredited and an entirely different group of archaeologists is invoked to witness a crash hundreds of miles away.

Zeigler, p.23-24: "However, some ufologists, notably Friedman, were unconvinced by the core scenario of Versions 2 and 3, which placed Grady Barnett and the archaeologists not on the Plains of San Agustin but more than 100 miles (160 km) away on the ranch operated by Brazel.... The key to Friedman and Berliner's Version 4 was the testimony of Maltais (1991) and Anderson that placed Barnett and some archaeologists on the Plains of San Agustin. At the 1992 conference, Randle, Schmitt, and Carey (1992:19) argued cogently that Anderson's tale was "no more than a fabrication." These authors also indicated that they had evidence that Barnett never claimed (as Maltais had alleged) to have seen a crashed saucer. Insofar as something resembling a consensus resulted from this conference, it appears that Version 3 triumphed over Version 4. For example, the conference moderator concluded that Anderson's story presented "warning signs of a hoax" and that evidence for the Barnett story was "extremely soft" Nevertheless, despite a general trend of commentary favoring Randle and Schmitt, their Version 3 also came under fire. One ufologist (Whiting 1992:35) noted that "the basic weakness in the Randle-Schmitt argument is that it fails to provide a credible reason for moving . . . Barnett miles [240 km] to the east," where, according to Version 3, Barnett and some archaeologists had stumbled upon the crashed saucer near Roswell.Perhaps sensing that the tide of opinion was running in their favor, in their next book Randle and Schmitt (1994) produced Version 5 of the Roswell myth. In this version Barnett does not appear, thus eliminating the need to explain why he was near Roswell rather than on the Plains of San Agustin. However, new witnesses had come forth (or had been ferreted out by Randle and Schmitt), and their testimony indicated that an archaeological team did stumble upon the crashed saucer near Roswell. This, of course, was not the archaeological team of the Barnett-Anderson story (which had been largely discredited in the eyes of some ufologists) but rather a different group of archaeologists. Indeed, in their book Randle and Schmitt (1994:191) declare that, for lack of evidence, "Barnett's story and, in fact, the Plains [of San Agustin] scenario must be discarded." It was also necessary for them to change some details, such as the date of the crash and the shape of the alien spaceship, to conform to the testimony of their new witnesses. Despite these changes the core scenario of Version 5, which follows, is essentially a replay of Versions 2 and 3 " Feoffer (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well done on incorporating this content into the narrative! It's such a luxury to sit back and watch the article be improved by leaps and bounds! Feoffer (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

In re your recent removal, the Globe's significance is them being the first to report bodies actually brought to the base at Roswell (and flown to Wright Field by Pappy Henderson). I don't know we need to actually bother the readers with that level of granularity, but it is an element that gets incorporated into the narrative, and it helps to understand that it came from a tabloid. Feoffer (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The date given (1981) is likely an error. It says that the article cited his widow Sappho. Henderson seems to have lived until 1986.[9] Korff (1997) credits Randle (1991) for getting the story from surviving Henderson family members. Randle (1991) and Stringfield (1989) attribute the story to family members interviewed after Henderson's death, which would be 1986 at the earliest. The 1981 date seems to be a misreading of Stringfield (1989) who says that Sappho only heard the story in 1981 when Pappy saw an article in Globe about Roswell.[10] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit: to anyone reading this who has not read the sources, I realize I should make clear that I believe an error was made by Smith (2000), not Feoffer. When looking into it, I found several other sources that repeat Smith's Globe/Henderson claim (sometimes with the almost certainly false detail that he was dead in 1981) but none of these cite an issue of the tabloid. Stringfield (1989) wrote, "On February 17, 1981 the story appeared in the tabloid Globe and Henderson admitted to his wife and daughter that the story was true." Here's a clip of his wife Sappho Henderson and daughter Katherine Groode explaining the 1981 supermarket conversation:[11] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Great catch, that would explain why I could never find the Globe article that actually mentioned bodies, why it didn't appear in the RSe, and why it didn't fit into the chronology! Good solution. Feoffer (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

Could we brainstorm a way to show a cropped image of the front page that shows the relevant headline, but still provide the reader with an easy and obvious way to click through to full page if desired? The current lead image is an invaluable resource for people who want to read the entire front page, but it's challenging to parse in thumbnail. Feoffer (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Phineas Gage#Cerebral localization section uses a cropped public domain image with an inset of the full image, which links to the full image on commons, which links to both the cropped image and the cropped image with the inset. That's a bit complicated (and I think only allowed for public domain media) but it's the example that pops to mind Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Marcell's background

I noticed that back in December, this passage was removed: Independent researchers would find patterns of embellishment in Jesse Marcel's accounts, including provably false statements about his military career and educational background.

This appears to be reliable sourced.....and the edit summary that removed it didn't give much of a summary as to why.

I think this should be restored. This is a important part of the story.Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Readers don't need to open that can of worms. The Todd study of Marcel's background gets a brief mention in Saler et al, but mostly so it can be dismissed. The core tale has multiple independent attestation (DuBose, Jesse Jr, etc). Todd's hypothesis doesn't have much explanatory weight because per Saler, "The fantastical element of [Marcel's] tale lies chiefly in his interpretation of what he saw and heard and in his assertion that the debris 'was nothing that came from earth'". Marcel was clear that was just his personal suspicion, not something he was ever told or factually concluded. Todd (1995) ends with the extremely questionable conclusion: "Major Marcel was a mythomaniac who was responsible for the brouhaha back in 1947", but the article offers no proof for Marcel being "responsible" for the 1947 events; He didn't order the press release, Blanchard did. While Todd highlights what are genuinely apparent discrepancies between Marcel's late life interviews and his service record, it's a far leap to declare Marcel a habitual liar; I note even sources very friendly to Todd characterize his 1995 piece as merely "casting serious doubt on Jessie's memory". Under questioning from full-blown conspiracy theorists, Marcel consistently decline to 'confabulate' his tale: No "intact flying saucers" and no "alien bodies", just something more-or-less consistent with Mylar ie unfoldable and unburnable. (For comparison, we do have an article on an actual mythomaniac who habitually lied about his war service : Pseudobiography_of_L._Ron_Hubbard#Military_career) Feoffer (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears in multiple RSs. And not all sources "friendly to Todd characterize his 1995 piece as merely "casting serious doubt on Jessie's memory"". Kal Korff's book (which is cited in the article) pretty much flat out calls Marcell a liar. And quotes a large passage from Todd's research. Furthermore, this info does offer a great deal of probative value for the reader. It helps explain Marcel's claims of the foil that a sledge hammer would "bounce off" of, or couldn't be cut, burned, bent, etc. The fact of the matter is, Marcel did make a number of conclusions. (Including the notion that the material was "not anything from this Earth".) Conclusions that were not shared by people around him. This short passage (and was long standing content) help put that in perspective.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well Korff definitely helps, it's a full-throated endorsement of Todd's conclusion; It was cited only to Saler et al, so I didn't know about Korff's treatment of the material. Most of the discrepancies seem like falsehoods typical of aged veterans: if a famous general was in your chain of command, you worked for him. If you EVER went up in a plane before joining the Army Air Forces, you had flying experience. Two Air Medals can turn into five. A presidential statement gets mistaken for a transcript of a presidential address.

But two discrepancies highlighted by Korff are more serious -- false claims of attending GWU and false claims of shooting down enemy planes. There are innocent explanations for the former, many bios of ww2 vets reveal they attended military schools physically located at university, taught by university professors, but it's not something the University registrar would know about. But I can't reconcile the claims of having shot down multiple enemy planes with records showing total absence of even serving as a gunner -- at no point in Marcel's life would it have been acceptable to fudge or misremember that point. I'm still not sure how much weight we should give it, but Korff definitely goes in-depth on it.

The article's changed a lot since December, so I'll just ping @Rjjiii: and let them see where it would go now and what weight it should have. Feoffer (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

It was more that attending GWU. He also claimed he attended LSU, Ohio State, University of Wisconsin, and NY University. At least in the case of LSU and GWU, they have no record of him. I'm not sure if the others were ever contacted (Todd said he didn't try to verify the others because there is no record of him living close enough to those places to attend.) There is a lot of other stuff. In (for example) the 'Unsolved Mysteries' episode on this, Marcel was referred to as "an experienced combat pilot whose primary duty in peacetime was to investigate air accidents". Needless to say: that's not accurate. The fact this stuff kept following Marcel around is no accident. No debunker worked on that episode: as far as I know, the only consultants were Kevin Randle and Stanton Friedman. Speaking of Randle, it is kind of interesting how he has evolved on Marcel. I've monitored his blog for years and even he has recognized the fact Marcel had a tendency to exaggerate things. All this is not to disparage Marcel.....but frankly a lot of the UFO buffs have tried to say that some of the people with Marcel were in on the cover up. (Because they don't back his version of events.) And what I am suggesting adding back is a (very good) alternative explanation.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer and Rja13ww33: I'm not against the sentence remaining with Korff (1997) as a source, but I also don't see it as adding much. The reason I changed it before was due to sourcing, which Korff's book resolves. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Rjj. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous language, now citing Korff (1997). When I started looking over the article there was something similar cited to Todd's self-published newsletter.[12] I changed it to the wording (and citation) that Rja13ww33 quotes above because the newsletter doesn't meet WP:RS.[13] Then, I changed it again last December because I realized I was citing a point to Ziegler that he didn't put any weight on.[14] I'm not set on that wording, but I think that reverting is the appropriate thing to do per WP:BRD and that if I do it to my own edits, it lessens the potential for arguments. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

1947 military balloon crash

I have tried to sort the opening para out here, but it's still a disaster, largely because it has a long parenthetic flashback in the middle of it (to Kenneth Arnold). Try, as a new reader, making sense of what's going on here, paying attention to how many times the word "June" is mentioned. Bon courage (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Many small things

• The short description is a bit off. "unspecified object" seems meaningless. Putting out an invitation for others to rewrite it because my gut says "1947 crash" but that may be too brief.
• At some point should the Saler, Ziegler, and Moore full citation be broken up into the sections of the book? I think most shortened footnotes are pointing to the Ziegler section. At least a few point to the Moore section. I don't know if any point the Saler or Saler & Ziegler sections.
• Marcel says he was unable to speak with the press after the cover story. Klass (1997b) notes that news reports after the cover story include quotes and personal details from Marcel. Should we note this somewhere?
• "Modern views" should probably have a more clear title. My first thought is "Explanations".
• Do we want to mention the weather balloon demos? They seem to be one of the few things that is clearly part of a coverup. Loads of front page stories showed them on July 11, 1947. This one from The El Paso Times [15] is mistakenly cited by ufologists via Kevin Randle as a Mogul array.[16]
• Is there anything missing from the article? Or anything present that is completely out of scope?
• The ample quotes in the citations help with verification and collaboration right now. Per the WP:NOT guideline, we should start to prune these down at some point.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong yes on covering the subsequent balloon demos for press, whether it was an intentional coverup or not.
• Explanations is better than Modern Views
• I don't think it's a high priority to split the Saler, Ziegler, and Moore citation, but it would probably be an improvement. That said, when I see a citation to a multi-author text, it's sort of implied that some people worked on some parts and other people worked on others.
• I'll have to look more into Marcel's statement he couldn't get to talk to the press. In one of his filmed interviews, he recalled talking to the press but that he wasn't at liberty to honestly answer them, or something to that effect; At least in that interview, he did recall talking to the press, or that's my recollection at least.

Having had time to look at Klass (1997b), it seems pretty obvious to me that Marcel is talking about not being allowed to talk to the press openly; He's not denying being in a room full of press who want answers from him or sticking to a pre-approved cover story. Maybe other eyes see it differently, but I haven't seen any source that suggests Marcel told anyone he never got to interact with press. Besides, Marcel quotes could have come from releases from the press office, not directly from Marcel. I think it's an unnecessary detour unless there's more to the story that I don't yet know about. Feoffer (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In my view Marcel's claim that he was unable to be forthright to the press is a claim that should be noted in the conspiracy section. Drocj (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We already quote him: "They wanted some comments from me, but I wasn't at liberty to do that. So, all I could do is keep my mouth shut. " Feoffer (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Flow Chart

In the article there is kind of a flow chart (for a lack of a better way to put it), that cite references #44, 47, and 71. It looks kind of like OR (no offense intended)....pieced together from those references. Does anyone else see it that way....or am I missing something? What caught my eye was the San Augustin bodies being in 1980.....on a separate branch from Marcel being re-discovered 1978. The San Augustin body story (i.e. Barney Barnett) surfaced within a few months of Stanton Friedman first interviewing Marcel (in '78).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing to me too. It is trying to show how these things contributed to the myth, but the San Augustin bodies are not mentioned in the body. It should be mentioned in the article and then a seperate feed in, I think. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The diagram is indeed out of date and needs updating / replacement with a better image. It's an artifact from when an earlier version when the evolution of the myth was confined to single subsection with accompanying body text. Now we cover that evolution in the main body of the article. We have a table of elements that is fully verifiable and could be used to help created a better diagram if we wanted.

The general thing I'd want some infographic to do is to convey on sight that factual historical elements from 1947 got mixed with fringe beliefs about UFOs and a succession of increasingly elaborate hoaxes and wild tales. Feoffer (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Trimming images

I believe considerable trimming is needed in this article, as it seems overloaded with minor/insignificant details that might be fine in a book about the subject, but not an encyclopedic entry (see WP:NOT). Much of the prose needs trimming, but I will start here with the images. Firstly, having two maps of New Mexico is unnecessarily repetitive, as the content and geographical information depicted largely overlap; I suggest either combining them or simply deleting the first second map. Secondly, two images of people posing with debris, both apparently taken in what appears to be the same living room at the same time, are not needed, as one is sufficient to make the point; I suggest deletion of the image with Ramey and DuBose as neither person is clearly depicted. Thirdly, no image of ufologist Stanton Friedman is needed for understanding of this topic, the image adds nothing insightful, and including such an obvious glamour shot is distracting and comes across as a clear case of WP:PROMO. Fourthly, as with the Friedman image, including images of both Davis and his museum smacks of WP:PROMO; I prefer the second as it 'represents' both Davis and the local tourism industry. Fifthly, three depictions of 'alien corpses' are overkill, with the first being, once again, a seeming example of undue WP:PROMO; I suggest deleting it and retaining the second, which by itself makes the encyclopedic points perfectly clear. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, except that I would keep all images of the debris. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: I removed the photo of Glenn Dennis, which was also stacking at higher resolutions, and see that Feoffer removed Friedman's photo. I tend to favor more media and don't mind two debris photos. Regarding "Firstly, having two maps of New Mexico is unnecessarily repetitive, as the content and geographical information depicted largely overlap; I suggest either combining them or simply deleting the first map." The way the maps are composed, the first one shows relevant locations in New Mexico, and the second one shows events and places from The Roswell Incident (1980). Are you thinking of adding the known places and purported events together on one map, or adding the relevant locations (Aztec, New Mexico & Plains of San Agustin) to a map similar to the first one? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand what the maps represent. Because it is directly reflecting a book written by two well-established practitioners of, let's just say suspect theories, the second map seems a bit on the credulous, WP:PROMO side of things (this article is of course not about The Roswell Incident). I support simply removing the second map. But if someone really, really wants/needs to explicitly illustrate the second map's locations, I suppose adding some of them to the first map would be fine. I won't repeat what I wrote above about the two debris images. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"I support simply removing the second map." Gotcha, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting removing the one with the towns and bases and debris. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't misunderstand, I mistakenly wrote "first" in the original post. I will make that correction now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the first 'alien corpse' image per WP:PROMO; as mentioned above, two similar pics remain in the article. I plan to move the Aztec and Barnett pins on the second map over to the first map, and then remove the second map given the maps' overlap/redundancy, but I'll wait a day or two per WP:NORUSH. If someone wishes to beat me to it, that would be great, as who knows what formatting mayhem I might cause in the attempt. By the way, is there a reliably sourced basis for using the label "Barnett Legend" rather than something a bit more neutral, like "Barnett's Claim?" The word "Legend" seems/implies WP:SENSATIONAL, and it isn't used elsewhere in the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

We'll see what others think, but it's unclear the removal of the still is an improvement -- by showing the image and clearly labeling it a prop, readers are immunized against seeing it on FRINGE sites and being misled into thinking it's authentic.

Barnett never claimed to have seen any bodies -- he is a character in the legend, not a proponent of it. I've updated the text and sourced to PFlock. I'm uncertain if it's wise to merge the two maps -- we've worked very hard to help the reader SEPERATE the events of 1947 from the LEGENDS of the 1980s; If we take the 1980s legends and put them on the 1947 map, it will confuse the people when they read then 1940s section, and then when they get to the 1980s section, people will have to "flip back" to the very top of the article if the want to look at the map? I think this is a case to just invoke WP:NOTPAPER. Feoffer (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the images of the prop should not be there, but you make a good point for including them and labeling them "prop", so maybe that is OK. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe we need to adopt such a pedantic approach toward "the readers." This is an encyclopedia, not a book or fan-site about the subject. It is difficult for me to imagine any reader who, having gotten any distance into this article, would, or could, be confused about a unified map or aggrieved by 'flipping' back to it. I will admit, though, that two maps is preferable to the seven or eight that argument could logically justify. Nor does any reader of this article require multiple images of obvious props; and at the risk of repeating myself, the first prop image, no matter how it is labeled, is infused with un-encyclopedic, pro-fringe WP:PROMO, a point that is curiously not addressed here. But...given how both the dual maps and promotional image seem to be of such critical importance to some editor(s), I will drop those particular sticks, inspired in part by Bubba73's wise either/or comments.

However, I am deeply concerned about such phrases as we've worked very hard and, to a lesser degree readers are immunized. The latter suggests WP:NOTHERE behavior, but more importantly from a policy perspective, the former indicates ownership issues. Let's please not go down those particular roads. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Corona, New Mexico

Plains of San Agustin

Aztec, New Mexico

class=notpageimage|

The Roswell Incident (1980) conflates the 1947 debris retrieval near Corona with elements from unrelated crashed saucer stories, set hundreds of miles away from Roswell or Corona.

I wonder if we could tweak the maps to make their points more direct? If the second map comes across as either confusing or too in-universe to some people, would something like this help? I think the first map would be more useful for a reader with pins pulled rather than pins added. Thoughts? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The original instinct behind the first map was to show how you can't throw a dart at 1947 New Mexico without coming close to a USAAF and Corona wasn't even particularly close to RAAF. People try to link abomb stuff at RAAF to the incident, but it doesn't hold up. If you think it wise, we could pull the other AAF pins from the first map, leaving only RAAF, Corono, and then Alamogordo. Feoffer (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The first map works for me as is, but I'm also more familiar with the material than most readers will be, so it's hard to say. I do think a combined (historical facts plus legends) map would be a bad idea the more I think about it. @Bubba73: do you have any preference on whether to replace, remove, combine, or retain the second map? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think either retain both maps (because one shows the military bases and the other shows purported events) or combine them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Coverage of this article

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2024/03/the-wikipedia-conspiracy-that-wasnt-or-why-wikipedia-says-roswell-was-a-balloon/ Guy (help! - typo?) 13:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Great article. Wikipedia should be proud. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

At the time, it was quite a struggle to have Wikipedia say it was a balloon that crashed.[17] Bon courage (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Atomic / Rocketry hypothesis

Multiple versions of the myth suggest that the "aliens" were observing atomic or rocket technology. We just removed mention of speculation going back to July 6 '47, which is fine as that's very early and not Roswell-specific. But currently there's no mention of that aspect of the myth -- should we add some mention of that element later in the narrative? Feoffer (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I removed that line in the 1947 section because it was cited to Ziegler who seemed to be describing it as an element of the myth and not a relevant historical detail (p. 17). If the article is framing it as an aspect of the larger myth or a specific conspiracy theory, I don't have any issues. Frank (2023, p. 529) also gives it a passing mention as part of Berlitz and Moore's 1980 book, "According to their book, what really happened was that a saucer flying near US nuclear weapons test activity got hit by lightning." And Olmsted summarizes Ziegler on the 1980 book as, "Charles Ziegler calls “Version 1” of the Roswell myth, the “weather balloon” was actually an alien spaceship that had been flying over New Mexico to monitor the U.S. military’s atomic research." Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wanted to add something like that to the text, I'd appreciate it and consider it an improvement. It's "interesting" that the atomic/rocket speculation goes back to '47 and if we dug hard enough I'm sure we'd fine a non-PRIMARY source talking about that, but it also conflates "in-universe" myths with genuine '47 events, which is the last thing we want to do! Better to do as you suggest and pick up around 1980. Feoffer (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's in the " The Roswell Incident " section as, "The book argues that an extraterrestrial craft was flying over the New Mexico desert to observe nuclear weapons activity when a lightning strike killed the alien crew." I thought that was sufficient, but am fine if you decide to expand. If you find non-primary sources for 47, that's also fine, but regardless of the sources, it could be pretty confusing to break down that [a] in Summer 1947 people were leaning towards some kind of high-tech nuclear rocket to explain UFOs and [b] by the 50s it was a major cultural trope that UFOs were not nuclear rockets, but rather alien crafts observing nuclear rockets. It could probably work better somewhere like Flying saucer or Unidentified flying object, where there's room to explain the transition. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Feoffer (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)