This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unidentified flying object article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Unidentified flying object. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Unidentified flying object at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 24, 2004, June 24, 2005, and June 24, 2006. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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
US Government new name for UFOs Rkunreal93 ( talk) 17:43, 17 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)
This should be included, but @LuckyLouie and @JoJo Anthrax does not think so:
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
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. ––
FormalDude
(talk)
22:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
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.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
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)
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 scientistNot 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 casesWikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on interesting sources.
If a consensus found the earth is hollowThis is not a forum. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
And the Shag Harbour case, a very famous one, is only there to show that UFOs are seen in the sea tooFinding 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Cornell university proves UFO's are real by agreeing with pictures. 207.177.214.86 ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unidentified flying object article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Unidentified flying object. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Unidentified flying object at the Reference desk. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 24, 2004, June 24, 2005, and June 24, 2006. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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
US Government new name for UFOs Rkunreal93 ( talk) 17:43, 17 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)
This should be included, but @LuckyLouie and @JoJo Anthrax does not think so:
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
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template. ––
FormalDude
(talk)
22:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
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.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
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)
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 scientistNot 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 casesWikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on interesting sources.
If a consensus found the earth is hollowThis is not a forum. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
And the Shag Harbour case, a very famous one, is only there to show that UFOs are seen in the sea tooFinding 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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Cornell university proves UFO's are real by agreeing with pictures. 207.177.214.86 ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)