Talk:Unidentified flying object/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

time to move to UAP

Socks don't get to start threads -- Ponyobons mots 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the more comprehensive term of Unidentified Anomolous Phenomenon, given its being used in numerous articles, is it time to change the main title to UAP? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) No. Most all reliable sources for this topic have used, and continue to use, the term UFO. Perhaps a name-change will be appropriate when and if that situation ever changes. See earlier discussions on this Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) CBS and CNN are using UAP. Given that UAP actually covers not only Aerial/flying objects, but also submersive, outer space, etc, why do you think we shouldn't use the more comprehensive term? Also US congress is using the term UAP. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-uaps-unexplained-aerial-phenomenon-ufos-new-name/ https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/07/26/exp-space-uap-congress-aliens-fst-072612pseg1-cnni-us.cnn Lonestar-physicist (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC) High ranking DOD officials are also using this term more and more: https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/ "Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. " Lonestar-physicist (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This notion has already been discussed here and consensus was that recent emergence of the term 'UAP' in the United States has not suddenly eliminated the longstanding global context and use of the term 'UFO'. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC) it's a changing situation. So "longstanding global context" is more important than being more accurate and comprehensive? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) That is a false dichotomy. As has been suggested to you twice already, please read the prior discussions on this Talk page. I also suggest that you read WP:CONSENSUS, which describes the fundamental model through which article content on Wikipedia is decided/determined by editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Yes I have read that. Do you have anything to back up your claims that it's a false dichotomy or is it just your opinion? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia operates by consensus, and policy-based rationales on Talk pages are given the most credence rather than internet debating skills. A relevant policy for this discussion is WP:COMMONNAME. As discussed earlier on this Talk page, the term 'UFO' is the most common name for this particular topic as evidenced by the vast majority of cited sources both current and historical that use it. 'UAP' may someday be the defacto term for the topic, but until it is, we stick with the current one. Wikipedia naturally 'drags its feet' and never leads the charge, preferring to wait for a vast majority of reliable sources to reflect fundamental shifts in terminology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) so facts are secondary to arbitrary wikipedia policies? weird. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) The 'facts' confirm that UFO is still by far the common name, and Wikipedia goes by the common name. As do most sources - that's why it's common. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC) ok if you say so... Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) is there a way to conduct a poll on wikipedia to see what other editors think who may not feel comfortable discussing this due to stigma? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) No, we don't base content decisions on secret ballots. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) not secret ballots. public ballots. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I invite editors to vote on this public poll: "Fiat determinatio per omnes populos" https://poll-maker.com/poll4919153x6D5d40Ef-152 Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Please don't waste people's time with off-site polling that could not possibly be used here. MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I'm not mandating this or making people participate in this poll. you're welcome to not participate. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) please stay on the subject and don't make this personal. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Should UFO/UAP be moved to a more apropriate top section?

Socks don't get to start threads -- Ponyobons mots 19:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

given recent developments and announcement by DOD deputy, should UAPs move to a new top section eg. National Security? right now it's categorized under hoaxes! https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/? from the article: "When asked why she went all-in on prioritizing AARO as an element under her purview, particularly now, Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. DOD is focusing through AARO to better understand UAP, and improve our capabilities to detect, collect, analyze and eventually resolve UAP to prevent strategic surprise and protect our forces, our operations, and our nation.” Lonestar-physicist (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) not to mention White house John Kirby also said UAP are affecting military training. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You are using unusual terminology. What does "should UAPs move to a new top section eg. National Security" mean? What is a "top section" supposed to be, and how do UAPs "move" there? And what is "categorized under hoaxes"? Category:Hoaxes does not seem to contain anything like that. I cannot even tell whether you are talking about improving the article Unidentified flying object or not. If not, you are in the wrong place. If yes, with "top section" you could mean the lead or lede, the part which starts with "An unidentified flying object (UFO), or" and ends with "understandable with psychosocial explanations." In that case, UAP is already there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I think I misunderstood something. apologies you're right. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Should UFO still be categorized as Pseudoscience and fringe science?

Socks don't get to start threads -- Ponyobons mots 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I recently got a notification on my talkpage when I edited this article. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Lonestar-physicist#Introduction_to_contentious_topics So is UFO considered Pseudoscience and fringe science? if so why is US government considers it a national security threat and scientifically analyzing it? this is from AARO website published today: https://www.aaro.mil/ "Our team of experts is leading the U.S. government’s efforts to address Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) using a rigorous scientific framework and a data-driven approach. Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has taken important steps to improve data collection, standardize reporting requirements, and mitigate the potential threats to safety and security posed by UAP." https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/?utm_content=262515320&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-1450183022616121344 from the article: "When asked why she went all-in on prioritizing AARO as an element under her purview, particularly now, Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. DOD is focusing through AARO to better understand UAP, and improve our capabilities to detect, collect, analyze and eventually resolve UAP to prevent strategic surprise and protect our forces, our operations, and our nation.” Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) If UFO is same as vampires and warewolves, why does US gov has a entity within DOD for UAP called AARO? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Yes, it should, as explained at Talk:Pseudoscience. Please don't make duplicate posts on multiple talk pages like this. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I discovered the second page later and posted there as well to get the most people engaged in this important conversation. I think the more opinions we have on this is better. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I invite editors to vote on this public poll: "Fiat determinatio per omnes populos" https://poll-maker.com/poll4919153x6D5d40Ef-152 Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC) agreed. I totally welcome everyone engaging in this discussion. Polling helps other editors who may be deterred by illogical stigma around this subject to participate as well. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You have fundamentally misunderstood Wikipedia's decision making process. You should read the links provided. MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC) ok how about you keep your opinions to yourself? instead you can contribute positively to thhis article instead of being nasty and making things personal. THank you sir/madam. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I'll comment as I please, thanks. If you don't want people to point out that your arguments are completely out of touch with how Wikipedia makes decisions you should consider reading our policies, especially when they've just been linked for you. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Please stop disruptively editing. thanks. if you can't contribute to this article, find a better hobby. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You can always tell an argument is going well when the personal attacks come out. You're right, though, we've accomplished everything this thread is going to accomplish - you now know that per Wikipedia's policies, this article can and will continue to identify Ufology as a pseudoscience. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC) @User:Lonestar-physicist. You have been on Wikipedia one day. How Wikipedia's editorial policies apply to this topic has been patiently explained to you on multiple pages by a number of experienced editors. Saying This is all to improve the article and don't make it personal doesn't excuse an ongoing pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior. I seriously suggest you take some time to read the encyclopedia's editorial policies before continuing. This kind of ongoing WP:DISRUPTION isn't usually tolerated on article Talk pages for long. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You're accusing me of exactly what MrOllie and yourself are doing. Please mind your own business. Thanks. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)