Talk:2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings

Unable to detect drones using conventional methods

Article: Shoot them down already!’: NJ legislators frustrated by State Police drone briefing

"Among the challenges lawmakers were told that authorities face is that current radio frequencies do not pick up drone signals. The State Police deployed helicopters over Raritan Bay but could not detect drones, even with infrared cameras, according to Kanitra.

It is called an electro-optical infrared camera, which can detect a drone within one to two miles and has the ability to see in the dark via heat spots, Kanitra relayed. It's the latest kit they have but was taken out of service and sent back to be retrofitted after being unsuccessful in detections.

Now, they're trying to add drone-specific radar to it and believe it should be operational again in a few days."

https://www.app.com/story/news/local/new-jersey/2024/12/11/nj-drones-lawmakers-paul-kanitra-dawn-fantasia-greg-myhre-frustrated-with-state/76921367007/ Anathemastudio (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Half the photos in this piece (1, 3, 4, 5, and 8) are of a helicopter. Some of the others look like airplanes, but it's hard to say. This is such a flap. VdSV9•♫ 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you should add a brief sentence about that to the article. Don't know about that source, I can't access it and suggest this or this. The second is definitely a WP:RS but I also can't access it either (except using the Wayback Machine so please link that).
VdSV9, I wonder if you read Anathemastudio's post or only the link, the pictures of this article are irrelevant, please read the text. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The pictures in these articles are quite relevant when analysing the context of what people are actually seeing in the sky and calling them drones. It's part of a critical analysis of the sources, something that should be done by anyone when researching anything. People are freaking out about "drones", looking up and seeing airplanes, and I mean regular airliners, sometimes helicopters, and calling them drones. The media feeds into the paranoia, as do some politicians, and WP shouldn't be contributing to it. It should be a source of actual information. VdSV9•♫ 16:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt anyone disagrees, but desires of editors are ultimately irrelevant against policy and WP:RS. Our job is to put the article out as it should be versus how we want it to be. It's beyond our authority to decide outcomes--only convey what we are allowed by policy. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mass psychogenic illness in the United States

Hey VdSV9, I removed this category which you recently added to the article. Since the article currently makes no mention of mass psychogenic illness or mass hysteria, that categorization seems inappropriate. If you can add some well-sourced information that links these sightings to mass psychogenic illness, please do so and feel free to add the category back. Thanks – Anne drew 01:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Identified as mass panic in this article [1]. jps (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a reprint of this article. It's also labeled as an opionion piece and editorial, and I don't see any medical or scientific qualifications listed for the author. What WP:RS actually call the events in this article specifically a Mass psychogenic illness? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is another article identifying it as a mass panic. [2] Note that "mass psychogenic illness" is just Wikipedia's preferred synonym for mass panic of mass hysteria. jps (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to the wording, mind you. It's not like a single word in the article today is binding in any conceivable way on what the article will read as tomorrow or next week, unless someone is a time traveler; news and facts will or won't change things. We'll just report what is reported as it's reported by WP:RS. That doesn't look like WP:RS, though, 404media? The author is a professional journalist and editor. Is that an editorial? It reads like one. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a piece identifying the flap as mass hysteria: [3]. jps (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Good source but all it says is: "Given history's various episodes of mass hysteria, from UFO sightings to 2016's epidemic of clown sightings — remember those? — it can't be altogether discounted." -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anne drew: You were probably right to remove it. I jumped the gun. Although this is quite clearly a case of mass hysteria, I didn't have any sources for it, so my inclusion was OR and I should have waited for sources instead of just including it. I don't mind waiting a few more days until someone... Oh wait. jps found a few mentions and I think it's enough to include the category. Call me biased, but is it really bias to have a leaning towards reality? VdSV9•♫ 12:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

VdSV9, I agree. Wikipedia definitely has a bias toward reality. The article should be leaning away from WP:SENSATIONAL coverage emphasizing mystery and awe. There's plenty of mainstream opinion out there deserving of primary weight in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we're doing a good job of labelling witness accounts as "sightings" and "reports" rather than calling it actual drone activity in Wikipedia's voice. There probably is room to include speculation from both experts and the general public on the cause of these sightings, including this mass hysteria theory. That should be balanced, however, against the large number of RS labelling them as drones. – Anne drew 19:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is extraordinarily tame compared to the rapidly expanding and escalating national media coverage. It's all over every station today! And now the US Military, I saw, just confirmed these over a German base. I'm amazed this article isn't being hammered by users. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Chetsford, I wonder how appropriate it is to reference the mass hysteria theory in the lead. That is an actual medical condition that, according to our article, involves the rapid spread of illness signs and symptoms and involves physical symptoms. It seems like a lot of these commentators are saying "mass hysteria" but what they really mean is "people are being gullible". Are there any reliable medical sources backing the mass hysteria theory? I worry about giving it undue weight if no medical professionals have supported it. – Anne drew 02:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's appropriate at all to use the phrase "mass psychogenic illness" [4]. None of the sources say MSI. They say "mass hysteria" which, whatever its connection to the mental illness, also has a pedestrian usage which I inferred to be the meaning being invoked here. Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm okay I see your point, people do use the term informally. I've removed the wikilink and put the term in quotes to reduce possible confusion. Please let me know if you disagree with any of my revisions. – Anne drew 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Anne drew -- just to clarify, I'm 100% fine with excising it from the lead entirely (i.e. the entire paragraph) if you or anyone thinks it's likely to create confusion that a medical diagnosis is being proferred. (Sorry, I didn't notice this thread before I added it.) Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC); edited 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Another good point, and one more reason why I was wrong before. Too bold, I guess. I'm usually more careful than that, but I think this discussion is important. To quote the article: MPI is distinct from other types of collective or mass delusions by involving physical symptoms. I haven't seen reports of people claiming health effects of these things. What's the correct term here? This thing is sometimes referred to as a flap.

Robert Bartholomew, the sociologist and expert in mass psychogenic illness, has published as a guest in Michael Shermer's substack, here. He calls it a "panic" several times. And, responding to one comment, he says It's not mass hysteria and never was. It is a social panic involving an exaggerated threat that is being projected onto the skies.

So, probably not a great ref to use in the article, but I think relevant to this discussion. I'll have to take a look at the social panic page. I guess there is no Category:Social panic? VdSV9•♫ 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the closest categories we have are Category:Crowd psychology and Category:Social phenomena. For what it's worth, the mass psychogenic illness category is a bit of a mess and includes events that are definitely not related to the medical condition, such as the 2016 clown sightings. It might make sense to introduce a new category for similar social panics. – Anne drew 19:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Medicalisation is inappropriate here, i.e. psychiatry is the wrong lens. Let the studies sift out and social contagion, if not mass hysteria and The Dress will all feed into it.

kencf0618 (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2024 to -- 2024 United States drone sightings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2024 New Jersey drone sightings → 2024 United States drone sightings – Simple and clear reason and logic -- the news coverage, reporting, myriad WP:RS, and official statements now put this on both US coasts plus the midwest, with Wright-Paterson AFB in Ohio now also impacted. There are Canadian and Mexican reports too but they seem less solid. We can always expand and rename again if needed later to 2024 North American drone sightings or similar at a later junction. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral Despite the occurrence of "sightings" in other parts of the U.S., the nature of the delusion seems to be generally associated or linked with New Jersey and makes this name the most indelibly linked to the topic. On the other hand, I could see a situation in which this evolves quickly over the course of days or weeks so that such a move could be warranted in short order. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's already shutting down airspace/airports in Ohio military bases and NY airports. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral The drone sightings were only spotted in the Northeast of the United States. It's unclear if the aircrafts spotted in the West Coast, Canada, or Mexico are actually drones or planes. SpringField23402 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support They are spotted in different parts of USA. --Andrew012p (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drones don't appear on radar or shut off in FAA restricted zones. New Robin Radar systems to be used.

Article: New Jersey Pilot 'Lost Power' After Approaching Mystery Drone

"Michael B, the CEO of Terror Talk Productions, said his drone "spun out, lost power and the battery died" when he tried to approach a mystery drone flying in a restricted zone in New Jersey last week. This week, he experienced something similar again.

Michael B's drones did not lose power because of the other mystery drones, but because they were flying in a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) restricted zone.

Speaking with Alex Witt on MSNBC Reports about the phenomenon, Michael B explained that, while his drones lose power upon entering the zones, the mystery drones in New Jersey appear to retain their ability to fly in those areas." https://www.newsweek.com/mystery-new-jersey-drones-2001211

Radar not affective, but good article for suggesting other methods to use for tracking called Robin Radar systems. These radar systems and CEO are referred to in next article. https://www.robinradar.com/why-traditional-radar-isnt-effective-at-tracking-drones#:~:text=Unlike%20the%20manned%20aircraft%20that,of%20flying%20in%20huge%20swarms.

Article: N.Y., N.J. drone mystery to be tackled by high-tech detection system. Here's how Robin Radar Systems work. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/new-york-new-jersey-drone-sightings-robin-radar-detection-system/

Anathemastudio (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Any URL / link? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I added them now. Anathemastudio (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

We generally approach WP:NEWSWEEK with great caution. I'd suggest if Newsweek is reporting on paranormal activity cited to someone named "Michael B" that may be something that we don't need to include right now. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of other stories just like his that can be used instead if you want. That's why US fed gov is switching to Robin Radar systems to track these drones instead of running into problems that Michael B CEO of Terror Talk Prod ran into. Anything flying in FAA restricted airspace is supposed to shut down automatically but the mystery drones don't. That's the main point of that first article Anathemastudio (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can find other sources we can see about integrating it all at appropriate 'weight', like a sentence or two perhaps. Wikipedia goes higher level. Like, if we later get far more data, maybe there's an article about specific unique drones or incidents, but we're not anywhere near that (today!). -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Mainly the mystery drones can keep flying in FAA restricted airspace, aren't detected by conventional radar or our cyrrent drone detection systems, so US fed gov is switching to the bew Robin Radar systems. The second and third links go over some derails about those new systems and why our current radar systems don't work for these drones. Both links reference the CEO of Robin Radar. Anathemastudio (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are the new systems the US fed gov is switching too. To not use that info on wiki would just be making work for yourself at a later date, so up to you. Anathemastudio (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Anathemastudio: "Anything flying in FAA restricted airspace is supposed to shut down automatically..." is an extraordinary claim that requires a much better source than this Michael B. quoted by Newsweek. Speaking from my knowledge as a licensed drone pilot this is certainly not a legal requirement, however one of the most popular manufacturers, DJI, has taken it upon themselves to build geofencing software into their drones. The drone will stop at the edge of the geofenced area and may land or return to the takeoff point, but it will not suddenly lose power or deplete the battery. Their restriction maps often don't align with the actual controlled airspace around airports, and pilots with proof of FAA authorization can unlock them as needed.

Most other drone brands will take off and fly in controlled or restricted airspace even if it's illegal to do so. This is common knowledge within the drone community and it's ridiculous to claim that the ability to fly in restricted airspace indicates anything besides an off-the-shelf consumer drone. –dlthewave ☎ 03:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Although most drones come with some sort of programming not to enter restricted airspace, in some cases you can override that by going to a menu and just tapping a "I take responsibility" or similar button that appears below a message on screen. Also, the programming is such that a few of them just stop moving forward at a "virtual barrier", most go back to base and land, and some just show a warning message and simply go on. They don't just "shut down". The claim that his drone "spun out, and the battery died because he was entering restricted airspace" makes no sense. More likely he didn't realize he lost connection, or he didn't notice he was running low on battery (and his drone wasn't programmed to go back to base when it was low) or something else. This is bad infomation. It seems to imply that the other drone had something unusual about it, but is no evidence of anything nefarious or unusual. VdSV9•♫ 15:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of second paragraph of lead

I would like to suggest the second paragraph be rewritten as follows to more accurately capture the content of the body:

A joint investigation by civilian and military agencies of the U.S. Government failed to find "anything anomalous" and attributed all sightings reported to it as the misidentification of celestial objects and lawfully operated manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. Numerous independent experts in academia and the commercial sector, including Vijay Kumar, Mick West, and others, reported similar conclusions. While branches of the U.S. armed forces confirmed unauthorized fly-overs of military sites, U.S. Air Force Major General Patrick S. Ryder indicated such occurrences were "not unusual" and were generally not nefarious.

Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I think it reads too much into direct quotations. There are a couple things we might want to be more precise on. Here's my alt, differences underlined:

A joint investigation by civilian and military agencies of the U.S. Government failed to find "anything anomalous" and attributed all sightings reported to it as said that sightings included the misidentification of celestial objects and lawfully operated manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. Numerous independent experts in academia and the commercial sector, including Vijay Kumar, Mick West, and others, reported similar conclusions. While branches of the U.S. armed forces confirmed unauthorized fly-overs of military sites, U.S. Air Force Major General Patrick S. Ryder indicated such occurrences that drone flyovers were "not unusual" and were generally not nefarious.

1. The statement actually says that sightings include those things, which is a subtle but meaningful difference. Source.

2. The wording in your version makes it sound like they are saying the recent military base incursions are nothing unusual, when he actually said that drone incursions in general are nothing unusual:

"It's not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat, and so the same applies to drones flown near U.S. military installations; some fly near or over our bases from time to time," Ryder said. "That in itself is not unusual, and the vast majority pose no physical threat to our forces or impact our operations."

In fact later in that same article, he pointed out Langley as a base with "concerning" drone activity. Source.

Besides that, looks pretty good! – Anne drew 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Anne drew -- I prefer your version! Chetsford (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have the same concerns with the 2nd/3rd paragraph see below FergusArgyll (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think the current version of the second paragraph sums up the salient points much better. The rewrite does not convey the weight of the statements confirming the objects as large, unidentified drones. Jusdafax (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  What if we made it the third paragraph? Chetsford (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. This story is moving so fast that the article is likely going to have to be rewritten often. This article from CNN is an example why I say that. Posted abut two hours ago, it shows some very high level concern along with, in my view, gratuitous reassurances that there is no threat. If they don’t know what is, how do they know things flying over airports and sensitive military installations are absolutely not a threat? Jusdafax (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, with that I've added Anne drew's version of the proposed rewrite as the third paragraph. Chetsford (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have it backwards. It shows reassurance that there is no evidence of a threat, with some gratuitous displays of concern, because they don't want to be perceived as not caring about this huge nothingburger. VdSV9•♫ 15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2024 to 2024 United States drone sightings

2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings → 2024 United States drone sightings – I know we just did the move from New Jersey to Northeastern United States but at this point, it's gone coast to coast, the midwest, and the mountain region -- everyone but Alaska and Hawaii going by time zone now has these, as confirmed by the United States military. We may as well do due diligence and keep up.

On the plus side, once this is done--assuming it doesn't spread past the USA--we're done. And if it goes further, we can always just do 2024 North American drone sightings and so on. But this ought to settle the naming of the article for a while. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the question isn't where are these reported sightings occurring?, it's how are reliable sources labelling this event? (see WP:COMMONNAME). There's lots of sources calling them "New Jersey sightings", and in recent days many of them have been calling them "sightings in the Northeastern US". I'm less convinced that reliable sources are broadly referring them as "US sightings". In my opinion we should wait and see how coverage shakes out over the coming weeks. There is no rush to rename the article, let's take our time and get it right. – Anne drew 00:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose ... for now. This is a very long article and to have to expand it to cover the entire U.S. for all 2024 will make it even longer. There are millions of drones in the U.S. that are viewed tens of millions of times annually, with some of those viewings / sightings getting reported by RS. For instance, do we include this [5] story of an Alabama woman who complained after she spotted a drone being used by her neighbors to spy on her changing clothes? On the other hand, I do understand the appeal of changing the geographic scope given the fact reporting is spreading to other states outside the Northeast. Chetsford (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Soft Oppose We have to yet wait if this occurs across America not just in the Northeast region. Rager7 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Not only United States but globally at least United Kingdom and Germany sightings are confirmed Foerdi (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because someone saw what they think is a drone doesn't mean it's actually a drone or that it's anything to be concerned about. Nothing actually spread, only some hysteria. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support They are spotted in different parts of USA. --Andrew012p (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Lead paragraph says they have been spotted throughout the Midwest and West Coast. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 16:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support - News shows it is more widespread than the east coast. :Shotgunheist ^💬 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - A now-widespread phenomenon. Jusdafax (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: From the lead: "...additional reports and military-confirmed events were noted across the southern states, the midwest, western mountain states, and the Pacific coast." It is now clearly a more widespread phenomenon, and should be acknowledged as such in the title. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Almost all reports are of lawful manned aircraft

@Very Polite Person: Why did you remove that [6] bit from the lead? Your explanation makes no sense to me: there is no OR, no SYNTH. There are more sources to back this up, some already in the article (Misidentification section). But I found that the one source I used should suffice, with the quote About 100 sightings of mystery craft have been identified as warranting further investigation, FBI officials confirmed during a background briefing Saturday. They have dismissed the bulk of some 5,000 other sightings as manned aircraft. There is a 50/1 ratio of "manned craft" to "we haven't been able to figure it out yet". Realistically speaking, there are a bunch that have also been verified to be planets and stars, but I'm sticking to what the source says. Isn't 98% "almost all"? Is it the word "lawful"? That's implied, but if you don't like it, remove the word, not one of the only bits of reason that can be found in the lead. VdSV9•♫ 02:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracking

To date none of these sightings of whatsoever have tracked. None whatsoever. It has been suggested that (citation 3) that they be checked against flight apps, and a certain Tom Adams, whose business is drone defense—there is such a thing—includes both celestial objects and satellites in the mix (citation 117). Drones come and go; ephemerides are forever. kencf0618 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you're suggesting a change to the article, but I also don't understand what claim or argument you are trying to make here. I'm tempted to reply, but WP:NOTAFORUM. VdSV9•♫ 15:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

political bias and misinformation

https://www.newsweek.com/what-project-blue-beam-conspiracy-theory-erupts-over-drones-2001051

Is the source cited improperly by the biased source cited in this page claiming incorrectly that Charlie Kirk, and not Charlie Kirk News, endorsed a conspiracy theory. Follow two links and it disproves the political attack embedded in this page, what a joke. 2600:1000:B115:935A:3022:6835:5C48:5155 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia in most cases. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with you both. I've removed the offending sentence in [7]. Thanks – Anne drew 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

AARO external link

Hi Baratiiman, I'm curious why you want to include a link to AARO's official website as an external link? It doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Thanks – Anne drew 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

it's in the name ALL DOMAIN ANOMALY RESOLUTION OFFICE Baratiiman (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but just because the name sounds somewhat related to the topic doesn't mean it's a good candidate for an external link. We don't link to thedronelifenj.com just because the name sounds related. It should meet the criteria listed in our external links guideline. None of our sources mention AARO and these reported sightings being related, so assuming that they are related is original research. And even if reliable sources did link the two, it would be a better candidate for the see also section than an external link. – Anne drew 16:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Drones "emit no heat"

I just deleted the following:

Sheriff Mastronardy of Ocean County Sheriff's Office in New Jersey said that the drones evade detection because they don't emit heat like typical drones.

I did this because: (a) the first source doesn't actually attribute the "no heat" claim to Sheriff Mastronardy, it just randomly drops it in as a final, unsourced sentence at the end of the article, (b) the second source is from NewsNation which doesn't have a good track record on UFOs/UAPs and has a tendency to sensationalism -- I question (but don't assert) if it's a non-RS for these types of claims (though the matter has never been definitively resolved, merely discussed here and there).
If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert me immediately without waiting for discussion/resolution here. Chetsford (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems sound. I'm fine with omitting it from the article. Thanks – Anne drew 16:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

References