Talk:Unidentified flying object

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am concerned that this article and others related to the UFO topic are presenting a slanted viewpoint from skeptic activists that minimizes the bipartisan, evidence-based legislative record on UFOs. This article fails to mention the "UAP Disclosure Act" and recent legislation efforts supported by the majority of both parties in Congress, and frames this topic as sociological and pseudoscientific, rather than acknowledging the ongoing government efforts to declassify information about UAPs.

This misrepresentation has a harmful effect on American democracy. When a topic that is actively being addressed by both parties in Congress is dismissed or ignored as a “conspiracy theory,” it prevents the public from understanding what their elected government is actually doing. By framing bipartisan legislative actions as fringe or imaginary, Wikipedia effectively distorts the public record, undermines informed civic participation, and promotes a skeptical viewpoint that does not reflect the official position of Congress or the legislative process itself. The content of this article presents UFOs as a frivolous, pseudoscientific topic rather than acknowledging the serious legislative inquiry. It seems to me that this is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and due weight. Is there a discussion I have missed somewhere? This seems absurd to me that skeptic activists are cited as reliable sources rather than the leaders of both American political parties. V138565954 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The things you mention are being given WP:DUE weight in the article, for example Unidentified_flying_object#Governmental and the linked article Investigation_of_UFO_reports_by_the_United_States_government. What we won't do is change the article focus from a world view of the topic to focus on the United States. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that there is a link to this information, but at the very least, the lead section violates WP:DUE because it gives disproportionate emphasis to a skeptical viewpoint, and uses language such as “without confirmation of the fantastical claims of small but vocal groups of ufologists who favour unconventional or pseudoscientific hypotheses.” This phrasing editorializes and frames the topic through a dismissive lens. It also relies on an outdated synthesis of historical sources (for example, the American Project Blue Book, concluded in 1969) while omitting recent, bipartisan U.S. legislative developments, such as the UAP Disclosure Act and other Congressional actions mandating official investigation and declassification. My concern comes from the fact that the UAP Disclosure Act has failed to pass in Congress, and the link in this article is an earlier version of similar legislation which passed a few years ago. If the public were accurately informed about the legislative history and ongoing policy debate through Wikipedia, this legislation might have received greater support. If Wikipedia is being used, intentionally or not, to promote a skeptic perspective while minimizing verified, bipartisan legislative actions like the Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Act, it undermines the principles of neutrality and due weight. V138565954 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

If the public were accurately informed about the legislative history and ongoing policy debate through Wikipedia, this legislation might have received greater support That's not how Wikipedia works, we're not here for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. the lead section violates WP:DUE because it gives disproportionate emphasis to a skeptical viewpoint. The lead section is a summary of the article's major points, per WP:LEAD. The encyclopedia's WP:FRINGE policy explains how Wikipedia handles such subjects: if the scientific community is skeptical about it, that skepticism will be reflected in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

My concern is with the accurate representation of verifiable, bipartisan government activity. The current version of the article gives undue weight to skepticism and introduces non-neutral language such as “fantastical claims” and “pseudoscientific hypotheses.” These phrases reflect editorial bias rather than encyclopedic objectivity. Asserting that “UFOs are fringe” does not justify saturating the article with skepticism while minimizing opposing viewpoints. V138565954 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies here. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

the lead section violates WP:DUE because it gives disproportionate emphasis to a skeptical viewpoint and undermines the principles of neutrality and due weight and The current version of the article gives undue weight to skepticism are all incorrect, with If the public were accurately informed about the legislative history and ongoing policy debate through Wikipedia, this legislation might have received greater support is highly unlikely. As for minimizing opposing viewpoints, please see WP:NPOV (in particular its subsection WP:GEVAL), WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. Really, click on those Wikipedia policies and read them, as I believe they will help you to understand what content is, and is not, included in Wikipedia articles. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. The WP:NPOV – Words to watch section states not to use loaded words, and I am proposing that we modify or entirely remove this sentence in the lead section based on the loaded words "fantastic" and "small but vocal", because these introduce bias and editorial tone.

"…without confirmation of the fantastical claims of small but vocal groups of ufologists who favour unconventional or pseudoscientific hypotheses…”"

Based on the current policy on WP:FRINGE, giving more weight to skepticism applies to ideas or claims that depart significantly from mainstream views in their field. As a topic, there is no consensus among reliable sources that the entire subject of UFOs is pseudoscientific.

For example, the Government of Canada’s Chief Science Advisor directly addresses “UAP stigma” as an obstacle to research and investigation. This indicates that skepticism itself is a recognized social factor negatively affecting the topic. It would therefore make sense to include a section discussing stigma and the negative impact of skepticism, and improve the neutrality in the lead section to remove biased language.

“UAP stigma” refers to a widespread skepticism towards people who report, speak openly about, or research UAPs. The Sky Canada Project seeks to dispel “UAP stigma” by recommending approaches that promote openness, transparency, and scientific integrity. Serious investigations of UAPs are hampered by stigma." V138565954 (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, Ask AI says "Ufology, the investigation of UFOs by those who believe they may be of extraordinary origins (most frequently extraterrestrial), is generally regarded as a pseudoscience by skeptics and science educators. [1] [2] [3] [4] This classification stems from the fact that while ufology claims to employ scientific methods, it often lacks adherence to appropriate scientific methodology, supporting evidence, plausibility, and falsifiability " Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Please don't use AI here, even if it is right. It's just a random conglomerate of what people wrote before. Using the people's output directly is better because you can choose to pick what competent people wrote instead of what random people wrote, as AI does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV – Words to watch section states not to use loaded words No, it doesn't. It says certain expressions should be used with care. We do. It says Try to state the facts more simply. We did. It did not convey the state of the evidence as given by reliable sources.

It does not matter how much respect you have for American politicians, the fact remains that they do not have expertise in identifying objects in the sky. UFO skeptics do. (UFO believers typically only have experience in failing to identify them.)

This indicates that skepticism itself is a recognized social factor negatively affecting the topic So, the pharmacologist Mona Nemer, the Government of Canada’s Chief Science Advisor, does not like UFO skeptics and therefore Wikipedia should disagree with what they say? Can you spot the fallacy yourself? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The full text of what you pasted says "Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words."

Also, that report was commissioned and published by the Government of Canada, not personally by Mona Nemer. The Government of Canada’s science office identified “UAP stigma” (defined as excessive skepticism) as a social factor harming research.

Here is some peer-reviewed research and other government reports which identify stigma and excessive skepticism are documented barriers in research. V138565954 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The Government of Canada does not have any expertise in pseudoscience either. Its unjustified attack on skeptics shows that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is more about the overall UFO phenomenon, globally going back to the early 20th century. Getting into specific funding bill is too much detail for this page, but we do cover the UAP Disclosure Act in a couple different places, including National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. Feoffer (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect OVNI has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 1 § OVNI until a consensus is reached. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 23:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect AOIAMSG has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 15 § AOIAMSG until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)