Talk:Roswell incident

From WikiProjectMed
(Redirected from Talk:Roswell UFO incident)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 19, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2024

Under "Roswell in Popular Culture" add ICONIC Roger the Alien from the "American Dad!" His entire character is that he was a grey alien, "crash test dummy" who crashed in Roswell and was later rescued by CIA agent Stan Smith (which is why he is part of their family).

Re: Season 1 episode 5 "Rodger Codger" (and later re-examined in Season 6 episode 12 "You Debt Your Life"), with a full flashback to the night he crashed is seen in the Season 18 episode 1 "Fellow Traveler."

The show references it A LOT as being an alien in disguise is his entire schtick 73.175.25.75 (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Excellent suggestion, thank you for it. I've added it. Feoffer (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

37 witnesses to the Roswell shape memory foil

As far as I know there was no such foil in existence at the time. At least not created by humans. :)

References are at the end of the page:

Archived here:

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts from Roswell do not describe "memory metal", they talk about a lightweight foil that can be crumpled and unfolds automatically: Think mylar balloons. If you heated the foil and it folded into an origami crane, that might be like "memory metal". I've been on the lookout for a good RS addressing the Roswell/Battelle/NiTinol tendril of the lore, but thus far haven't found one. Feoffer (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mylar was invented in the 1950s. Nothing existed in 1947 with the memory foil properties described by the witnesses. And it did not need to be heated to return to it shape. Crumple it, and it returned on its own.
The memory foil is not mentioned at all in this Wikipedia article. Just like the Walter Haut notarized 2002 affidavit is not mentioned in the article at all. The article is completely slanted to it being the Roswell "myth" and "legend". It definitely does not deserve "good article" status.
--Timeshifter (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it did not need to be heated to return to it shape Which is why it has no similarity to the memory metal effect. I don't mean to suggest that the foil was literally mylar, only that a very low-tech material can do things like unfold after being crumpled.
The memory foil is not mentioned at all
And I'd like to fix that -- but the source you linked isn't a reliable source, and if I tried to add it, it would just get removed (as it should be). I've looked (hard) for a RS talking about the memory metal thing, and I couldn't find one that met Wikipedia's standards (which I agree with). I'm still looking, and will keep looking.
The article is completely slanted to it being the Roswell "myth" and "legend". But that's not Wikipedia's fault. We're a summary of a certain set of sources (the "Reliable Sources"), we're not journalists writing out our own original research and opinions. Believers and skeptics all agree that the reliable sources are reporting Roswell was a Mogul balloon, so we summarize that. Feoffer (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic lack of sense

Just wheeled back to this article after a while, and it seems to have gone odd not least because of what seems like an effort to get a "myth" wording into it. So the first (odd) sentence offers this definition:

The Roswell incident is a collection of events and myths surrounding the 1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon near Roswell, New Mexico.

What is "a collection of events and myths" and how can an "incident" be such a collection? Is there any sourcing for this? And if we accept this definition of "incident", subsequent sentences now make less sense, e.g.

Reporting on the incident ceased soon after the government provided a mundane explanation

Surely the "incident" was what happened, and subsequently a bunch of people wrote a load of mostly fictional stuff about it, some of which was (according to some commentators) 'mythical' in nature? Bon courage (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the "incident" was what happened
Just responding off the top of my head ala brainstorming. I always think of The Roswell Incident as a 1980s-era myth (after the eponymous book), that drew upon a mundane set of events in 1947. So far as I'm aware, no one calls it "The Roswell Incident" until the CT. I feel like NPOV/V could support a sentence like "The Roswell Incident never happened"; but also, this article still has way too many of my fingerprints on it and at the end of the day, 'I have no strong feelings one way or the other' Feoffer (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the article title is wrong, which causes the word "incident" to get overloaded? Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to that, but what would the title be instead? Something like '1947 balloon recovery by Roswell Army Air Field'? Or should we put the title in scare quotes maybe, to help reader understand it's a proper phrase? I'm attached to nothing on this part -- ledes are not my forte. Feoffer (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent citation format

This article still has an inconsistent citation format. That is a bar to it becoming GA. Bon courage (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polishing references is usually the last thing to do in a workflow, we're still at the stage of ruling out bigger problems and soliciting other suggestions. When GA/FA hinges only upon reference polishing, we'll know the references are ready for a final polish. (but also, props to anyone who wants to polish now) Feoffer (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But hasn't this article been nominated for GA? Bon courage (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GA review process is interactive -- a reviewer comes and looks over the article and makes suggestions and then you improve the text according to those suggestions. Per Rjjiii, I'm not even sure this article's citation style is problematic tbh, I'm primarily interested in the GA to see if it can help us find more substantive ways to improve our text. But of course I'm also on board to help fix the citation style if that's what's needed when we get there. Feoffer (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should ask you to actually clarify what you want done to improve the references. Last year, you were asked "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." Maybe you made a reply I never saw.
What do you think is unclear about our current citation style, and do you have any MOS to back it up? So far as I'm aware, it's perfectly fine to have a Reference and a Sources section, with the former citing the latter. I literally just went to Category:Featured_articles and the very first article I clicked on 2nd Red Banner Army had both a Ref and Sources section. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is consistency; I don't have a super-strong preference but for book-heavy referencing harv works well. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait -- it looks like this has been addressed by Rjjiii already. Looks like all the SFNs have been converted to Harv -- am I mistaken? Feoffer (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the inline CS1 <ref>s which are mixed in. Bon courage (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took some searching to figure out what you meant by CS1, let me echo back to what I think you mean. You are concerned that we mix {{Cite web}} and {{harv}}/{{sfn}}. A spot inspection suggests FAs like 2nd Red Banner Army do the same. Are you really sure this counts as "unclear"? Feoffer (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We have a list of "Sources" and some source aren't in it. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After hearing you arguments, I see nothing in the MOS to suggest we can't mix CS1 and Sources. I see Rjjiii doesn't think it's problematic. And I see a FA that does the same, suggesting the project doesn't see it as problematic.
That said, Henny Penny and WP:SOFIXIT apply: If this citation thing is really important to you, then this is your time to shine and help us be all that we can be. I don't think anyone has any objections if you want to harmonize the article's sources, and I also don't think it's the end of the world if you object to GA status over a trifle. The point of the review is to improve the article, not earn a gold star. Feoffer (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be improved with consistent citations. I did it once many years ago, but it has degraded. Why are some articles, and some books, listed in Sources but others not? It is inconsistent (unless there is some organizing principle I have missed?). Hence the template. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid standard, but not one required for GA or FA. Don't argue with me, just go fix it. (Or don't!). I'm confident readers can ascertain where our sources are cited to. Feoffer (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed.[1] So there is no argument. But if the "trifle" of a GA sticker is needed, then the "trifle" of doing the work to get the citations sorted is needed as a prerequisite. Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the "trifle" of a GA sticker is needed
It's not. This is a controversial topic, I'm completely fine with it never being a GA, if that's what's best for the project. I nominate it to solicit ways to improve it. I honestly don't think your proposed changes constitute an improvement, and my evaluation is only strengthened by your unwillingness to actually implement them yourself, much less cite any MOS suggesting we can't mix styles when FAs clearly do. Feoffer (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the previous discussion. Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage: Could you link to the old version you mentioned above? I'll look through the references later tonight, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage Men conspiracy

For the record, I concur with this removal. Despite the contents of the book and film, it's not clear to me that USAF was really involved at all. I think it all comes back to "Doty said he was working for the Air Force", where Doty is a known hoaxer. Feoffer (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting about it, Feoffer. I had intended to, and things came up. The other changes, I think, were pretty straightforward. My concern was that a "conspiracy by the U.S. military to fabricate UFO folklore in order to deflect attention from classified military projects" was a broader claim than what more academic sources make. It's still mentioned in the article under "Majestic 12" as "Richard Doty and other individuals presenting themselves as Air Force Intelligence Officers approached Moore". Rjjiii (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Roswell_incident"