Talk:Unidentified flying object

Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 3 months

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.

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.

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.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Paranormal High‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Horror High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Aviation: Aircraft Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Archives

To March 2006 To June 2006 To November 27, 2006 To March 01, 2008 To June 20, 2008 To December 2008 /Archive 7 /Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

I disagree. It is a related phenomenon!--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Unidentified flying object#Terminology says UAP can stand for unidentified aerial phenomena or unidentified anomalous phenomenon, but the article intro only mentions the anomalous meaning. Please include both at the start of the article.

Unidentified flying object#Terminology is also missing a quotation mark at the beginning of the sentence Unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP) first appeared in the late 1960s. Actually that needs to clarify the term has been around since the '60s, even though the phenomena have been around nuch longer. The term "unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP) first appeared in the late 1960s.

Wishing you safe, happy, productive editing. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also remove the commas from the sentence The acronym, "UFO" was coined by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, for the USAF. (If i'm not mistaken, the first is incorrect, while the second might be OK but isn't necessary.) Thanks. --173.67.42.107 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation aside, any changes or rewording of content need to be cited to a reliable source per our editorial policies regarding verification of content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Another editor fixed the quotation mark, I removed the commas. As for the rest: the lead already includes a note (the little 'a' beside 'UAP' in the lead sentence) explaining that "aerial" is also used, which I think is sufficient. And I don't believe adding "the term" is needed before "unidentified aerial phenomena", as the sentence is in the 'Terminology' section and follows a sentence that says, "The term UFO...", both of which provide the necessary context. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article is drifting

This article is about unidentified airborne or aerial phenomena, not about submerged or 'transmedia' phenomena, which may or may not warrant separate articles. I have removed the drift and recentred the article on the title subject matter and removed a couple of 'woowoo' concepts creeping in. A UFO is simply unidentified. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, additions like this are definitely inappropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There already exists Unidentified submerged object with a long history of saves in the Internet Archive going back to 2006 (the current creation date is 2014; it was deleted once by AfD in 2010). There is no "See also" section in the UFO article, so there should be a link in the text or hatnote to keep lengthy submerged discussion out, imo. 5Q5|^✉ 12:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, 5Q5|^✉ but I added it under Distinguish from in header because it's getting a bit congested at the end of this article. At least it's in. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A related thought: the scholarship that the article should be based on studies UFOs as an aspect of human experience. There are WP:RS that talk about UFOs as an aspect of history, culture, psychology, and so on. Ufology investigates UFOs as craft or at least some type of object. To the extent that the article is discussing "capability" or otherwise using wording that assumes a category of physical object to be studied, then the article is taking the position of ufology. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 'perceived' as tautological, and removed assumptions that the object or phenomenon is under flight control and have included UFOs and UAPs together, which covers the field. I hope this removes ufologists' assumptions of piloted extra-terrestrial vehicles and keeps the subject matter to merely things observed (or at least reported,) but unexplained. History, culture, psychology etc are all valid to the explanation of what might have been observed and are dealt with well enough in the main text. Any better? Ex nihil ^(talk) 16:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a "See Also" section. I will add it.Jack Upland (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland, Black Sun is a disambiguation page. Could you do the specific link to the one that is related to UFOs? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I might have been mistaken.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the Acronym

I think this quote: "The term was coined when United States Air Force (USAF) investigations into flying saucers found too broad a range of shapes reported to consider them all saucers or discs" demands further citation and contextualization. There are plenty of sources that have "unidentified flying object" in them that could lay claim to "coining" the phrase. It is maybe worth noting that there is a subtle difference between the phrase being used alongside many other phrases like "flying discs" or "unknown aerial object" in the 1940s-1950s and its emergence in the modern sense to describe a specific kind of phenomenon. Dunston666 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation to the lead. What are the other earlier usages of the term? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, thanks. As for the other part, disregard. I think this video gives good context. Dunston666 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NewsNation Ban

Hello editors,

I'd like to revisit the decision to exclude NewsNation as a source for UFO-related articles. NewsNation is a cable news network with national distribution, owned by Nexstar Media Group, the largest local TV operator in the United States. Its reporters have received White House press credentials and conduct interviews with sitting members of Congress, former intelligence officials, and government whistleblowers. By any standard, NewsNation meets the basic threshold for WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS.

If the exclusion is based on perceived bias or sensationalism in specific UFO reporting, that concern should be addressed case-by-case under WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE—not through a blanket ban, especially when the outlet is credentialed and broadly considered reliable on other topics.

Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that some skeptical advocacy sources or self-published skeptic journals (e.g., Skeptical Inquirer, blog-style skeptic commentaries) are included without the same scrutiny. These sources often lack editorial independence and are openly agenda-driven, which raises serious WP:FRINGE and WP:BALANCE concerns, especially when used to rebut claims by high-level officials or congressional witnesses.

Wikipedia should apply consistent sourcing standards—if NewsNation, a major, credentialed, cable news outlet, is being excluded, then self-published skepticism-driven sources should receive equal scrutiny under WP:RS and WP:BIASED.

I respectfully propose we:

Re-evaluate NewsNation’s status as a reliable secondary source for certain types of factual reporting (e.g., interviews, congressional statements, original footage).

Apply consistent skepticism to all sources, especially advocacy organizations or single-viewpoint publications.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Best, 2603:6000:AB00:3A56:425:D995:EF7F:AC2E (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NewsNation is not considered a reliable source on this topic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, or WP:UFONATION in particular. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully propose we: Re-evaluate NewsNation’s status as a reliable secondary source This article Talk page is not the place for that discussion. As recommended here, you should start a discussion or a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard. Please click on those links to learn more. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2603, thank you for taking the time to write it all out for us. I appreciate it. As explained above, this is the wrong place for that discussion, but you're new so there's absolutely no reason you should know that. :)

You're mistaken if you think Wikipedia has outirght banned NewsNation or that we don't take things on a case by case basis. When NewsNation or any source is alone in making a controversial claim, we need corrorboration before we can include it as fact in an article. And it is applied consistently: This week, NewsNation's Ross Coulthart said he "knows categorically" that the 2004 tic tac UFO was merely some form of Lockheed-Martin technology, but since he's the only one saying it, that means we can't report it as fact that the tic tac is human tech. Does that help you to see that we're doing our best here? Coulthart isn't a reliable source only because we have no other more-trusted sources to double check his claims and he doesn't himself cite sources for his biggest claims. Try not to see it as "skeptic vs believer", it's more about boring sourcing rules, not points of view. Feoffer talk) 08:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]