Talk:Unidentified flying object

Foo Fighter

No explanation as to why it belongs under Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. See Foo fighter; no connection to ETH. Does not belong in that place. Kortoso (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 7 November 2013

UAP should the page be named UAP now since US Government and mainstream media calling it that?

US Government new name for UFOs Rkunreal93 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not automatically follow the euphemisms a few gullible people in the government of some random country happen to invent.

It follows what reliable sources write, and they have not switched over to the neologism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

UFO, as this article notes, was a term invented by the U.S. government, and many reliable sources now use UAP. I'm genuinely perplexed by why you insult some nameless crowd as "gullible" when this is a very normal and matter-of-fact history of a government trying to speak technically about a zone of the unknown or unidentified while many others turn the unknown into folklore. The insulting terms used to browbeat and thereby maintain the bizarrely narrow categories in this UFO article are sad and are clearly preventing Wikipedia from accurately reflecting recent history in both the realms of government policy and popular folklore related to the broad and sprawling topic. Jjhake (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is in your comment there. See WP:RECENTISM. We need to aim toward a long-term, historical view. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The way Wikipedia behaves (Very Pseudo-Skeptic like) one wonders if they have made an alliance with the Pseudo-skeptical organisation, PSYCOP? It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they had! MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Rkunreal93, you're asking a perfectly valid question, and it's a disservice to readers in several ways when I look at how one-sided and narrow-minded the history of editing on this article appears to be. Jjhake (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a disservice to other editors to describe their work that way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve seen so much narrow-minded ignorance in this area along some of the most active editors. They don’t have respect for some of the important layers like folklore, popular entertainment, or technical military questions and are only interested in hard debunking (which I agree is critical but which is not the full picture as found in the full range of scholarship on this topic when considered from multiple fields). Jjhake (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve seen so much narrow-minded ignorance in this area along some of the most active editors. I invite you to read WP:NPA. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake They Want to Believe Rkunreal93 (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the most commonly used name, not the most recent name. MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie I think UFO better but page should be named both interchangeable. Rkunreal93 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Articles only have one title, that is how the wiki software works. We install redirects or disambiguation notes for synonyms. That has already been done here, so there is no need to make any changes. MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie Ok is there information about Grey Aliens who allegedly crashed in Roswell New Mexico July 1947 is it under Conspiracy Theories? Rkunreal93 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We just had a conversation about this topic in the section above ^^ Miserlou (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This should be included, but @LuckyLouie and @JoJo Anthrax does not think so:

NASA has declared that it will refer to such events as anomalous since they are not considered aerial-only, to be "consistent with the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, signed into law on December 23, 2022".

I suggest that instead of just removing, factual relevant information regarding the acronym, that they edit the page like good wikipedians, and enlighten users about the ways of the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Lobner (talk • contribs)

References

@Lobner: it looks like you are missing a signature above. Can you place one back in above so that this thread remains more readable? There is a definition or terminology section in the article that would be the place to start, and then the lede should very succinctly summarize what is agreed upon in that section of the article body.--Jjhake (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The NASA doc that Lobner wants to include already exists in the article as a cited reference (#88). The US-centric rationale for UAP vs UFO and the shift from 'aerial' to 'anomalous' already exists in the article in multiple places, and is appropriately cited to secondary sources. This is a case of a relatively inexperienced user who is unfamiliar with WP:LEAD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

My explanation for removing that content is here, in another section of this Talk page. To summarize: the US government, its laws, and its agencies do not have standing to (re)define the general term UFO, which has been used for a long time and remains in common use worldwide. The US government's chosen/current vernacular is already mentioned in this article and elsewhere, and it is not (or at least not yet) so prominent as to merit presentation in the lead. @Lobner: As for I suggest that instead of just removing, factual relevant information regarding the acronym, that they edit the page like good wikipedians, and enlighten users about the ways of the wiki, going forward I strongly suggest that you focus your comments on content, not on contributors. Please read, and familiarize yourself with, the guideline WP:AGF and the policy WP:PA. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Request to add an External link

I request that you please add the following entry to the "External links" list:

The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony, a 60-authored compendium of papers from researchers specializing in the social, physical, and biological sciences 96.58.40.194 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a preprint. So, we should wait until it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition to being available for free online at academia.edu, at the same time (this past May) it was published as an 8¼ x 11½ x 1¼" softcover book by UPIAR (see http://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?artID=201), so it has been in print for four months. 96.58.40.194 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I notice that James Oberg gave it a very positive review, and yet...the compendium editor is an amateur researcher, and the publisher UPIAR is actually a website that also sells UFO-themed T-shirts as well as books and magazines that range from serious to the sensational and fringe perspective. So I'd like to see indication of mainstream notability, perhaps further and more public endorsements a la Oberg are out there? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither the editor nor the other authors are receiving any remuneration for having created this collection of journal-style papers and there is no budget for advertising to spread the word. But from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-forensic-view/202305/psychology-and-the-flying-saucer-people 96.58.40.194 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest also considering the book's "About the Contributors" section (pp. 697-710). And the International Journal of Ecopsychology (IJE), published by The Press at Cal Poly Humboldt (California State Polytechnic University) has just recommended the book (see the 3rd from last and last of the listed Articles/PDFs). 96.58.40.194 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A very positive review appears on pp. 9-10 of the new issue of The Skeptical Intelligencer, the quarterly magazine of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry (ASKE). 96.58.40.194 (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh my. I see someone's been busy adding this as an EL to several Wikipedia articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As if there is something inappropriate about this landmark reference book being listed? 96.58.40.194 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that re: the template. I followed the instructions as I (mis)interpreted them. 96.58.40.194 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added comments (on Sept. 20 and 24) with two more endorsements. But is this current edit request "dead" such that comments subsequent to yours of Sept. 16 are not being be seen by you guys (due to the "answered" parameter now being set to "yes")? If not, I am content to patiently await more endorsements and hopefully an eventual positive consensus. But if this request is "dead," should I reset the parameter back to "no"? Should I resubmit my request from scratch (without using the template)? 96.58.40.194 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but yes you can simply start another request or change the parameter to "no" to try it again. XeCyranium (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

An unidentified flying object (UFO), or unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP),  is an object or light seen in the sky (or occasionally on land or sea) that remains unidentified or explained by observers with the means of examination at their disposal.

References

The lead sentence was recently changed from the stable consensus version to this one above. The sources chosen to support this new definition of a UFO seem to be singular examples woven together rather than one supported by a wide number of independent sources. I could understand if this new definition was driven by high quality WP:FRIND sources, but it is not. For example, Hynek openly embraced fringe beliefs. Jerome Clark wrote a series of WP:SENSATIONALized books. The Shag harbor newspaper article is merely reporting a UFO. And the Condon report offers a quite novel and meandering definition I haven't seen anywhere else. I don't feel this new version is an improvement over the old. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hynek and Clark are certainly not reliable, and a local newspaper reporting a UFO sighting is insufficient. I note also that this topic was discussed on this Talk page not too long ago (see here), and nothing has really changed since then. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Has there really been a consensus on the definition of UFO?

I can not understand what is your problem withe the references. Hynek was a scientist, a well repected man. Jerome Clark? well, I think he made a collection of at least several interesting cases. Condon Report ? I do not like it, but it was official, and it is very old. And the Shag Harbour case, a very famous one, is only there to show that UFOs are seen in the sea too.

Leaving references apart, please answer me: is the definition wrong? If so, can you please explain why'? If a consensus found the earth is hollow and men live down under, would you accept it? Mcorrlo (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Has there really been a consensus on the definition of UFO? There has been a consensus about the first sentence, since "cannot immediately be identified or explained" is the long-standing version.

Hynek was a scientist Not a reason to make him the boss of word definition. The section "Etymology of key terms" lists several other approaches, and the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article.

he made a collection of at least several interesting cases Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on interesting sources.

If a consensus found the earth is hollow This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The best definition should be found, regardless of who defines it. There are several definitions of UFO, and Hynek's is one of the best. Mcorrlo (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And the Shag Harbour case, a very famous one, is only there to show that UFOs are seen in the sea too Finding a newspaper article about a very famous case of a dog trained to ride a bicycle doesn't justify changing the lead of Dog to include verbiage about how dogs can ride bicycles. Just because something is verifiable and cited doesn't mean it belongs in an article lead (or even in the article). We look to expert secondary sources for the most widely accepted consensus definition of a topic rather than weave one together from primary sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think you are wrong, but what can I do? I still think my edit was right. And you did not answered my question. Is the definition of UFO wrong? Who may I cite in tour opinion, The american air force? They lied many times in the past, so is it a "reliable source" or just "official"? Mcorrlo (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The question Is the definition of UFO wrong? does not make sense. Definitions are a matter of consensus. They are not facts of nature. And nobody here cares about what the American Air Force says about the subject any more than what anybody else says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Cornell university proves UFO's are real by agreeing with pictures. 207.177.214.86 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)