Talk:1984 Hudson Valley UFO sightings

Redirect

Hello Neitherad and Moreszeq1, this article was previously merged from Hudson Valley Sightings. If you find adequate sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you should point that redirect at this article. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I have modified the redirect to point to this article and left a note on the page, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 06:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert explanation

Moobego, Night Siege doesn't meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards explained at WP:RS (general reliability of sources) or WP:FRIND (for fringe topics). It can be used as a primary source in this article. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Updated as citation needed. None of the citations listed provide an explanation for all sightings reported by witnesses. Moobego (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite of the page possibly

Hello all - I'm going to take a look at this stub and see what I come up with in a few hours. Sgerbic (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay all done - took 7 hours over two nights, but I think it is time to put a fork in it. I could not find photos unfortunately, though according to the sources there were many photos taken. There were several unused citations you can find in the edit, they mostly repeated each other, but I left them in. And there has been a history of UFO sightings in the area, reported that a small town is the capital of the UFO's in NY, I left that all out as I couldn't confirm that it was because of this specific sighting. I also found many reports that there were sightings in 1983 also, hard to get the exact dates but I did what I could. I didn't use the UFO books or videos, though I did add a couple in the further reading section. The Discover article I didn't read as I don't have a copy of that, but two RS citations quoted the Discover article and used those as cites. Enjoy! Sgerbic (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the problems with the reframing of the article from "Hudson Valley Sightings" to "1984 Hudson Valley UFO Sightings" is that there is a (famous in ufology circles) photo available, but it was taken in 1987. The event is largely one of UFOlogy lore and fame, but here on this article we are not using the UFOlogist's definition of the event, so you end up leaving out one of what they consider to be the most important elements of this "wave." I'm speaking specifically about the Randy Etting photograph.

I didn't try to add that photo in because I understand you want to keep the scope to what you consider is the proper definition of this wave, but I thought you might be interested to know in case later the article's scope is redefined. Eschaton1985 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Suitability of Night Siege as source material?

I want to ask editors here who know a lot more about this than me: I am confused by the decision to mark the most thorough single book on this topic as fringe - in my opinion there is a strong argument to use it here even though its conclusions don't comply with your definition of mainstream science. I understand that it is difficult because one of the authors of that book is a certified quack, but as for Hynek, he is a big and respected name in ufology; perhaps the biggest. He has about as close to an actual professional background on the topic as you could hope for in the 1980s, and he provides a lot of detail which is not pure speculation in Night Siege which could allow this article to be fleshed out. We may not find his conclusions and methods suitable for the "Skeptical Investigation" segment of the article (I do plan on reverting the reversions regarding that when I find out how to specifically do so while providing you with my rationale and not undoing some of your other work), but his book is certainly capable of fleshing out the "UFOlogy" section since it directly represents their findings and opinions.

But maybe I need to take a step back here and ask: what is the purpose of this article's existence on Wikipedia? Perhaps answering that would allow me to see a point of view here that I'm missing. Are we not trying to document an event in the fringe science UFOlogy? Eschaton1985 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a steep learning curve and no one can blame you for questioning why the encyclopedia does not look like social media or the internet in general where everything is taken at face value and the flashiest new and novel ideas get the most attention and credibility. So the short answer why Night Siege is not accepted as an expert reliable source is our WP:FRINGE policy. The notion that UFO sightings in the Hudson River Valley are un-explainable (or only explainable as alien spacecraft or top secret military assets) is definitely a minority (fringe) viewpoint. Such a position has not gathered support in the relevant scientific literature, so we deprecate and differentiate it from the mainstream view. A book like Night Siege that advocates the fringe viewpoint isn't suitably WP:FRIND independent. We only cite portions of it that have been mentioned in WP:FRIND sources, in this case, Brian Dunning. As for Hynek, he was no doubt an accomplished individual, but an author's background isn't the determining factor for how they may be used on Wikipedia (see Nobel disease). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'm glad you're one of the ones responding to me because I saw that you were the one who very quickly decided most of my edits were worthless, so I have to make sure I understand where you in particular are coming from.

The question remaining after your comment, from my perspective, is why Night Siege would not be an extremely valuable source for the sake of the "ufology" section. It is functionally the final word on this topic from their viewpoint; I don't think there has been a more comprehensive summation of their position than this text. It seems to be a valid source of information pertaining to their movement, position, and views, as distinct from mainstream scientific opinion. Eschaton1985 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be a valid source of information pertaining to their movement (emphasis mine). That's the rub. It is the policy of Wikipedia to focus on mainstream, non-fringe interpretations of...well, everything. Please see WP:NPOV and especially its subsection WP:GEVAL. Really: please read that material, as it will, I believe, provide you with the answers you seek. Hynek held an undeniably, unquestionably WP:FRINGE position with respect to UFOs, and being a fringe position {"movement") that did not receive much coverage by independent, secondary sources, Wikipedia will not, as a matter of policy, treat his books/writings/opinions as equivalent to mainstream science. Can his work be briefly mentioned? Sure, perhaps, maybe. But fringe interpretations, being fringe, do not and will not receive the same level of detailed presentation here as the mainstream. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. If you do not like that aspect of Wikipedia, I suggest that you either (1) pursue mechanisms to change the policy(ies), or (2) find another site to present your desired content. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Great conversation Eschaton and Louie, I did not include Night Siege in the article when I rewrote this page because of this reason mainly ... I don't own a copy of it and have no idea what is in it. I did list it under further reading as well as Zimmermann's book, which I also don't have access too.Sgerbic (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you have understood my position because you are citing those specific chapter and verses at me. Please reread my argument: I am not proposing to use Night Siege as a source of information about whether or not Hudson Valley events were hoaxes, aliens, or anything else. I am proposing that Night Siege, which I have incidentally read cover to cover, is an extremely useful source of information about how ufologists and ufology as a group of fringe thinkers acted and thought and communicated about this event. In that regard it is a matter of history, not science.

To give you an idea where I am going with this: my understanding is that the purpose of this article is to provide a non-stub description of the salient events, individuals, locations, and possibly context for this historical event (the 1983-1984 "UFO" wave. As someone who has studied this event, I know that you really can't write a good article on this topic until you can find sources that provide readers with a good overview of what UFOlogists were doing, because they were actually involved in the event as it occurred, rather than after the fact. Readers should know, for example, that Hynek was a famous, well-known UFOlogists whose appearance during the flap no doubt contributed to its popularity. Readers should further know that he, along with other colleagues, convened a large conference in the area during 1984, which was well-attended and probably influenced witnesses.

Take, for example, the very good wiki article on Eugenics: Eugenics. This is a topic that certainly has its share of fringe theories and positions! Documents which tend to support these theories and positions can even be found in the references, such as

Galton, Francis (1904). "Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims".

You could also look at the usage, on the same page, of The reason this is OK on Wikipedia, in my understanding, is that we do not propose to use Galton's work to promote pro-eugenics arguments as somehow on the same level with more mainstream modern views, but rather to ensure that readers are able to understand the historical views and individuals which shaped Eugenics as a movement. The correct usage of a source can enrich articles without promoting fringe science.

But this does take me back to my initial question, which no one has thus far answered: what is the purpose of this article's existence on Wikipedia? Right now it looks like its purpose is to provide a (relatively shallow) example of skeptical inquiry into a fringe topic. I do not think that really covers all of the valid angles. Eschaton1985 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

pardon the accidental inclusion of "You could look at the usage, on the same page, of." That should be stricken; it is just a remainder from a longer justification of my position that I decided to cut because I think you get the point. Eschaton1985 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There are preferred sources for reporting and analysis of ufologists viewpoints such as this, which represent an arms-length, dispassionate summary from an uninvolved third party academic. By contrast, Night Siege describes its content in hyperbolic, sensational terms and argues quite passionately for the fringe interpretation. There is an editor @User:Feoffer who has a lot of experience finding reliable sources to describe "the ufologists viewpoint". Maybe he can be persuaded to help with this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this article? Eschaton1985 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of any Wikipedia article? WP:ARTICLE, WP:ABOUT, WP:MOS, WP:NOT... - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this helps my project here immensely. You have no idea how bewildering it is to try to find stuff like this, just getting started out. Eschaton1985 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You can also ask at WP:TEA. There are a lot of good experienced people there. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So, Hynek is such a culturally-significant figure that you do NOT need to directly cite him to get his opinions into the article. The Sheaffer source accomplishes that fine.

Sadly, Night Siege is definitely not a RS. I tend to think Hynek can sometimes be a RS up to a point in some instances: on topics of astronomy, debunking, or even just in the sense of a significant religious leader expounding the details of his own faith. But this isn't one of those instances. Hynek died during the writing of the book! It's a collaboration with Bob Pratt of the National Enquirer! By all means, read it and use it as a jumping off point, but you can't believe something really happened just because you read it in Night Siege, you have to double check every word, because Pratt is notoriously sensational and unreliable. And once you know you need to double-check anything that Pratt says with a second source you can actually trust, well what do you need Pratt for? Feoffer (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for taking a look. However, please do carefully read what I have written. I have already read Night Siege. I do not propose to use Night Siege as a source to make any scientific claims. I can, if it is the consensus view, even refrain from making any claims about historical events, such as whether or not this or that individual was present at this or that conference, interview, etc., based on what is written in the book. But the book is still a valuable source of information about:

1. What Hynek thought of the situation after the fact
2. What information they thought they had collected
3. What they thought of the contemporaneously-proposed debunks (there were more than one)
4. What they tried to argue about that debunk

And so on. You are correct that I do not need to use Night Siege to get most of this information; if necessary I can get it from many other sources. Night Siege simply makes my job easier because of the fact that it does contain a large amount of factual information about the above, which I will be putting into this article when I have time. For example, if you look at the "ufologists" section on the article now, you will note that quotes have been arranged so that it seems as though UFOlogists did not think they had found any photographic or video evidence of the sightings. But on page 145 of Night Siege (my second edition copy), evidence to the contrary is provided, showing that in fact the UFOlogists did believe they had photographic and video evidence. I should be able to find that information elsewhere, but I also shouldn't have to: the work is the mouthpiece of the fringe position (UFOlogy), and can speak for itself. By now I have reviewed the relevant wikipedia articles on how to present points of view neutrally, and this would qualify as the neutral presentation of a non-neutral point of view:

"Subsequently, UFOlogists Hynek, Imbrogno, and Pratt publicized photographic stills of video tape evidence they believed depicted the UFO."

The value of this contribution to the article is that it helps explain to readers, in part, exactly why this series of sightings was viewed as highly important within the UFOlogy movement, and its lasting historical impact on the people of the Hudson Valley. Eschaton1985 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, your sentence has been added to the article, cited to reliable sources. The stills appear to have been published in a RS; if they're the same as the ones in the book, perhaps you could scan your copy of stills-montage and upload a cropped, low-res version here (not Commons) so we could use the image at the top of this article? (The Newspaper archive's images are very low-quality and I don't have access to the book.)

In general, it's an important sanity check to always cite things to non-fringe RSes. If it's really 'important' outside the universe of believers, there should be RSes that discuss it. With this topic, there is extensive discussion of the fringe claims in mainstream RSes, so it's should be pretty easy to cite.

If you look at the sources I've added, there's a lot of info in them that could be added into the article. You can even source Hynek's belief in the interdimensional hypothesis if you wanted to go there, we have the sourcing. Feoffer (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's too bad we'll have to simply forego the easiest path, but I can respect doing it the hard way. The pictures you are showing me are not the same ones as in the book - I've actually never seen those before. I will try to find RS sources on the stills from the book and upload them. That will be my focus for now; I'll take a look at the sources you've added later on.

As long as we have to duplicate the effort already accomplished in the past, it certainly helps to have someone like you assist (although at this point really I'm assisting you, given your excellent additions to the article!). Thank you so much for the guidance. Eschaton1985 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So here's an interesting problem you can help me solve, since Sgerbic, the one responsible for the rename of the article to be specifically about the 1984 wave, has not got back to me yet on whether it was wise to do so. I have here the single most important photo taken from what UFOlogists consider to be part of the Hudson Valley wave: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-enticing-mysteries-of-ufo-photography - but there are two wrinkles to this. First, that photo is from 1987 by their telling, and thus does not strictly fit this article, despite the fact that from the point of view of everyone who reads up on this subject, it would be the single most recognizable image to come out of it, in my personal opinion. I assume it's still not qualified... but maybe it doesn't make sense to restrict this article to just 1984?

The other problem with the source above is that while it is the New Yorker, certainly a reliable source, they get something pretty basic wrong with the photo! They quote Leslie Kean (certainly "fringe" per wikipedia's definition) on its provenance, who says that this photo's source policeman was never found. The truth (from Night Siege, sadly) you hear repeated everywhere else is that this is definitely the work of a guy named Randy Etting: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/best-ufo-photos-and-sightings-captured-on-film/ar-AA18EVKk. So now it's probably impossible to use this photo in good conscience, right?

Still looking for an alternative source to the still frames that show up in Night Siege. Eschaton1985 (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This image? We could probably use that. But also, you don't need to have another source for the photos in Night Siege, we have a RS discussing them now. I didn't communicate very well on that, lol. The subject of the article, if not the title, certainly included the subsequent 'flap' that ensued; I admit to being quite confused about that because at one point it seemed like 300 people had all seen something on the same day, when really it was over a period of time. Feoffer (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I renamed the article? I didn't do that. Checking ... nope it is the same name as it was when I started. There are two videos of me live editing this article over 7-hours. If you really wanted to know what I did and why I did it, then set aside 7 hours of your time, I show my work. When I rewrote this article I went with the reliable sources I could find and followed them. I changed the dates many times depending on what the sources said. I didn't focus on 1984, the citations focused on 1984. See ... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984_Hudson_Valley_UFO_sightings&oldid=1196506854] this is what the article was called before I touched it ... 1984 Hudson Valley UFO sightings.

Second, I always get back to people. I'm obsessive about doing it quickly. Where did you reach out to me asking me this question? And it might help to ping me here if you are talking about me.

It would be nice to have a photo, but the article can exist without it. I do state in the article from RS "According to the manager of CPI Photo Finish in Yorktown, "We're seeing quite a few U.F.O. pictures. People come in and hand you the film and say: 'Be careful with these. We ran outside with our camera because something was flying over our house.'" You can link to the newspaper articles that show some of these photos as I have done in the External links section on the Gulf Breeze UFO incident article.Sgerbic (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just seeing this post now ... so I apologize that I didn't respond, I might have glanced at this and had no idea what you were talking about @Eschaton1985 "One of the problems with the reframing of the article from "Hudson Valley Sightings" to "1984 Hudson Valley UFO Sightings" is that there is a (famous in ufology circles) photo available, but it was taken in 1987." I don't think I understood that you were speaking to me directly. Sgerbic (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say to that; I was responding directly to a comment you made, so I'm sure it showed up in your notices. Perhaps your notice box is just so busy that you missed it? Eschaton1985 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think I renamed the article? The history shows it hasn't changed names.Sgerbic (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

at the top of this talk page there is discussion about how this article was merged from "Hudson Valley Sightings" - perhaps I simply don't understand what a merge is. Eschaton1985 (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That was done July 8, 2023 by editor Rjjiii. I was clear, I rewrote the page Feb 19, 2024. Sgerbic (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

ah, my mistake! sorry about that. Eschaton1985 (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Eschaton1985 and Sgerbic: Yes. And to clarify because I seem to have generated confusion, there was a Hudson Valley Sightings article about 20 years ago, and it was converted from a stub to a redirect in 2006.[1] When this article was created under this name in 2023,[2] I pointed that older redirect here. I don't have any strong preference on the article's name. Its scope should be determined by the scope given in the sources. Hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does, thank you. Eschaton1985 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Per subsequent discussion as you can see, we are good to use the 1987 pic. It's the most famous.

For the video scans... how do I upload those here to the talk page? Eschaton1985 (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not addressing this sooner. I'll upload the 1987 pic as soon as I write the text necessary to merit its inclusion. (it's a copyright thing, we can only include such images if they're discussed in text.) Since we already have a better image and it's not 1998 anymore, is the video itself online anywhere? We could just link to it. Feoffer (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

yeah, but I thought we weren't supposed to use youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxMeUbdZOLE Eschaton1985 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I use YouTube all the time. Where did you hear that you can't use it? Sgerbic (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There are some cautions about using YouTube as a link: WP:YOUTUBE or as a source: WP:RSPYT. The channel the video is being hosted on seems to be runs by ufologist "Tom Owens UAP". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In general, we can't use it as a reference, but we can link to videos that are hosted on Youtube when reliable sources have discussed the footage in question. Feoffer (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, when you're new to the project, it can feel like memorizing an infinite set of random rules, but at some point you sort of "see the matrix code" and things start to make sense. We can't use just any Youtube video because we'd get flooded with garbage; We can use SOME Youtube videos when we know their content is backed by RSes. We're Not a Bureaucracy. Feoffer (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the recent change to the lead, but wouldn't be opposed to appending a sentence about Night Siege or more broadly continued attention from ufologists to the end of the current lead. Regarding sourced or not, it's not necessary but we can add citations. The lead section above the first heading is meant to be a summary of the body sections below. It's not required to cite most stuff in those lead paragraphs because they are meant to summarize cited material further down in the article (MOS:LEADCITE). It becomes less practical to cite the lead as an article grows larger (like Philosophy), Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reason for reverting the change I'm going to change it back because I do think it adds to the understanding of why this article exists, why it is as big as it is now, and why it has so many categories attached to it. As it stands, the current lead does not accurately summarize the contents of the sources supplied or the article as written. I don't mean to be combative, but after reading and rereading your reversion vs my change, I cannot see why you did that.

I sourced the statement like I did because that's how it was already and I'm new, so I didn't want to set a bad precedent. I also sourced it that way because I was concerned that people might try to say it was inaccurate and I wanted to show why it is not preemptively. If those aren't good reasons then go ahead and remove the sources, but not the new and improved language. Eschaton1985 (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii version: The 1984 Hudson Valley UFO Sightings, also called the "The Westchester Boomerang", were UFO sightings that stretched throughout 1983–1984 in New York and Western Connecticut. Pilots were flying Cessna 152s in tight formation and were amused that they were able to hoax residents into confusion.

Eschaton1985 version: The 1984 Hudson Valley UFO Sightings, also called the "The Westchester Boomerang", were UFO sightings that stretched throughout 1983–1984 in New York and Western Connecticut. While unnamed local pilots were ostensibly able to hoax residents into confusion, observers consistently cast doubt on that explanation, helping to make the sightings a significant event in local history and UFOlogy lore.

Something in the middle perhaps ... The 1984 Hudson Valley UFO Sightings, also called the "The Westchester Boomerang", were UFO sightings that stretched throughout 1983–1984 in New York and Western Connecticut. Pilots flying Cessna 152s in tight formation were responsible and amused that they were able to hoax residents into confusion. Some observers cast doubt on that explanation, helping to make the sightings a significant event in UFOlogy lore.

What do you think? I a little of both.Sgerbic (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine, although I would change "residents into confusion" to "witnesses," and change the final sentence to "Some observers reject that fact, helping to make the sightings a long-lasting and popular topic in ufology." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, but "some observers reject that fact"? Does the article discuss which observers reject 'pilots flying in formation' as the cause? It may be helpful to specify who the observers are to forestall driveby {{who?}} taggings. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

My preference would be to omit the final sentence, but I'd be fine with replacing "observers" with "ufologists." You know, collaborative editing and all that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the witnesses were self-professed ufologists. In fact, the ufologists themselves reported difficulty in capturing a sighting of the craft. I think this is even brought up already in the article:

Gersten stated "'It could be explained as extraterrestrial. We had someone try to photograph (the object). But it has avoided being filmed'" Eschaton1985 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If you will allow me to make an edit, I can certainly go through the sources and provide named witnesses that reject this claim. Eschaton1985 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The pilots were alluded to but not named in any of the sources. Normally with hoaxes, there are named individuals who claim it or are observed in the act and subsequently named.

The issue with reducing "observers" to "some observers" is not as serious, but I could not find any evidence, in any of the sources provided, that any of the people who actually claimed witness status accepted the explanation. I only found quotes to the effect that people rejected it as an explanation. That would not be "some" - that would be all. Ideally you would find a citation of a witness who accepted the explanation in order to support this kind of statement you're making, right? Eschaton1985 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Got pinged to this page, but not up to date on discussion below so commenting here. Look like there's lot of good ideas for an additional sentence. Think "some observers" probably more appropriate than merely "observers", because of course, it wasn't "ALL observers" nor "MOST" observers. Alternately, per LuckyLouie, ya'll could name specific people who rejected the hoax explanation (e.g. Imbrogne, others). FYI, polishing the lede text is usually the very LAST thing you work on, after everything else is finished and stable. Feoffer (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought things were stable, because there hadn't been edits in a while. "Some" is fine because I can imagine that for some people the hoax explanation was fine, though there aren't actually any documents which provide an example of such a person, other than the people who themselves investigated and introduced the hoax claim. Eschaton1985 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We do not require named people who reject, or even participated in, the hoax because we already have reliable sources identifying it as a hoax. Nor, based on the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV and its subsections WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI, are we required to present in any significant detail the sensational opinions of ufologists. I believe we are now running into a WP:1AM situation in this discussion, with WP:CONSENSUS, which is another Wikipedia policy, not in favor of emphasizing in Wikipedia-voice the sensational, pseudoscientific claim(s) of anyone, ufologist or not, such as the claim above that the article topic can be "explained as extraterrestrial." Perhaps it is time to accept that consensus. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not asking for a presentation of the opinion of ufologists. I am trying to represent the information contained in the article in a summary section of that article. This article is a history article in part, and the history of this event includes the information which I am including. My sentence is a better summary of the article for this reason. I think that jumping to WP:1AM here is premature, because I don't think you understand my point of view yet. The reason I don't think you understand my point of view yet is that you seem to think I am trying to promote ufologist opinion, which is an incorrect understanding of at least my motive, if not also the substance of my contribution.

Imagine if this article lacked any information about what people tricked by the hoax believed at the time. Imagine that we deleted the entire "ufologist" section. Would it represent the history well? Would it help readers understand why this was a big deal? Would it even justify an article beyond a stub in a list of hoaxes? These are rhetorical questions because the answer is clearly "no" to all of them. In order for this article to be useful, there needs to be room to present what people believed without misconstruing that presentation as advocacy. I have read the relevant wikipedia documentation and I am confident that it is OK and possible to present non-consensus information when it is pertinent and done in a way which clearly separates those statements from any claim to factuality.

Where this may be especially difficult for you to accept is that it is factual that the hoax was disputed by the witnesses. That makes it sound like they are the majority, consensus opinion, but the source materials presented here make it clear that this was the case at the time. It is, in other words, a fact to say that witnesses disputed the hoax. The problem for us is to come up with a way to show that history without advocating that the witnesses were correct in their opinion. I think the article already does that quite well by providing a large section which explains and documents the (current consensus) view that the hoax fully explains the entire event. I am open to further additions to this material. I am open to discussing how we can better word things. I am not open to misrepresenting history by blanket omission simply out of fear that we might accidentally seem like we are promoting a minority viewpoint. A summary should not omit one of the primary facts about a historical event which led to its importance.

@Feoffer, I am being accused of being a one-man army here, and you were very helpful in the past on this article. Am I in the wrong in thinking that I am simply being misunderstood here? If you agree then I can take the hint; it's not necessary that I understand in order to see that I'm in too small of a minority to continue making the case until I can find a more convincing argument for my point of view, but I strongly believe people are rushing to judgment here so I'd like your senior opinion, if possible. Eschaton1985 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What about something like, "Some witnesses were not satisfied with the explanation, and ufologists continued to investigate the sightings." If reliable sources say it was a hoax, we should summarize that. If reliable sources say that eyewitnesses did not buy the hoax explanation, we can summarize that without us having to re-evaluate whether it was a hoax. I understand if this does not fit into you goals/project, but editing is easier to learn outside of fringe topics and biographies of living people. Regards, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"some" ufologists continued ... Sgerbic (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What source says some witnesses are not satisfied that their sightings were caused by pilots flying in formation? If it's found in the ufo author's book, that's not a WP:FRIND source, so we'd have to state it as a claim rather than a fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The 1984 newspaper source cited under "Investigation" says, "The Federal Aviation Administration insists that fun-loving pilots are flying small planes in formation, but this answer didn't satisfy the people, numbering 1,000 and hailing from neighboring counties who packed a Brewster auditorium in August for a symposium on the sightings." "Strange visions from ordinary people". The Philadelphia Inquirer. September 28, 1984. p. 67.

The contemporary newspaper sources are arguably primary, and I don't have strong opinions on the best way to summarize them. I wanted to explain my edits so that reverting did not come off as playing a game or trying to wear someone out. Take care, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That sentence is better. What about "Some witnesses were not satisfied with the explanation, and ufologists continued to investigate the sightings, helping to make the sightings a significant event in local history and UFOlogy lore."

To add to what rjjiii said, here's some sources focusing just on witnesses (who are not, by and large, ufologists, any more or less than the average person who looks up into the sky and sees something they cannot immediately identify). I only included the examples that explicitly quote or paraphrase named individuals as rejecting the airplane hypothesis (despite evidence to the contrary):

source 4 - Irene Lunn, William A. Pollard

source 6 - Irene Lunn (again), Dennis Sant, Monique O'Driscoll

source 7 - Dennis Sant (again), Irene Lunn (again), Monique O'Driscoll (again)

source 8 - Andi Sadoff Eschaton1985 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it actually a hoax?

I had heard it was a hoax and accepted this answer since I'd heard it more than once in my years of reading about this topic, but as I was reviewing the sources we have on the article already, I found that the skeptic Brian Dunning had done research which indicated it was not actually a hoax. He wrote:

"And just to be clear, there's no evidence that these pilots ever intended a UFO hoax."

in https://web.archive.org/web/20231204001230/https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4598

Maybe it is better to consider this a misidentification?

Eschaton1985 (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

According to our sources, the pilots flying night formation initially did not intend to hoax UFO sightings. But, when they saw news stories and other publicity about people misidentifying them as UFOs, did they stop? No, they were very amused, adopted the name "The Martians", and continued their night flying, finding it hilarious that they were likely being mistaken for UFOs. So not quite a hoax and not quite an unintentional misidentification. Maybe a prank? A tease? An amusement? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A hoax implies intention. Once those pilots realized they were mistaken for UFOs and continued their night flying, their activity also became a hoax. It seems WP:BLUE to me. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Dunning an accurate and reliable source? He doesn't agree after directly citing the information you are talking about. Eschaton1985 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would venture that it could be called an amusement. Eschaton1985 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hoax is fine. Prank might be better if multiple others concur. Feoffer (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hoax does not comport with the source. I think there are probably other sources that claim it as a hoax, but then we would need to represent the disagreement. Eschaton1985 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "references" v. "reflist"

For anyone using only the source editor, this recent edit switching from {{reflist}} to <references> may seem arbitrary but allows the VisualEditor (and folks using it) to reuse and modify the list-defined references, either with {{r}} or <ref name="">. VisualEditor still can only add new references in the body text. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I was wondering why that was the case. Eschaton1985 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)