Talk:All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office

Untitled

Question: Who is Mick West and what relevant credentials/experience does he have to make his comments on these issues notable? Is he an optics expert or something like that? 24.136.61.231 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Mick West has absolutely no scientific or technical training or experience claimed on his official CV. The only thing he has appeared to have done, other than to work as a professional skeptic, is he helped design one video game. He does not have a college education, and in fact I don't know that he graduated high school, although it's probable he did. There's nothing wrong with non traditional training, but it's disingenuous to claim to be a "science writer" when all you are is an opinion spouter and regurgitator. Mramunds (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

1) You're responding to a years old comment 2) Scientific American and so on think he's an expert and that is good enough for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Report information

Should this article cover the new report, or should there be a separate article on it? There has certainly been a lot of media coverage. 70.172.194.25 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Some discussion also here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a preliminary report on anything deserves its own article, and since another report to Congress from what I read (can't find the link) is coming in 90 days on efforts established to investigate the phenomena, giving this first-step report its own section in this article is sufficient for now in my opinion. 5Q5|^✉ 11:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I have come around to accepting a stand-alone article with an accurate umbrella name. See the Talk:Pentagon_UFO_Report for further discussion on name accuracy. 5Q5|^✉ 12:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Which one was identified?

The news said that the report identified only one object. Is it known what sighting that was and what it was identified to be? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It was identified as a large deflating balloon. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect created

I made a redirect yesterday: the shorter UAP Task Force now goes to this article. 5Q5|^✉ 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Project Blue Book To Come Back?

In this article, the National Defense Authorization Act calls for consolidation and better funding for the UAPTF in FY 2022. Is PBB making a come back under a different name?

I'll include information from the NDAA 2022, pages 1710-1714 (or "SEC. 1652. Establishment of..." if viewing in html as according to the link) in a summarized form. Chantern15 (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Chantern15 (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Please wait for reputable secondary sources, we should not be summarizing federal budget items ourselves. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Which of these can I use?Chantern15 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

With the exception of the unexplained-mysteries "News story" none of those sources even mention Project Blue Book, much less state it is "coming back," and the unexplained-mysteries website is hardly a reliable source. Note also that the nextgov source states Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the NDAA released Wednesday does not incorporate an inclusion that would mandate this new office within DOD. which means inclusion within this article of your "consolidation and better funding" claim is, at best, premature. Let's just sit back and wait. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking for mentioning Project Blue Book, I only want to mention the establishment of a department-wide office under the DOD for the UAPTF, as described in the NDAA 2022. I know that creating such a link would be synthesis, so that's not my intent.Chantern15 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

As for the sources, my intention was only about the ones after the Congress.gov link and not anything prior to that, I know that it (unexplained mysteries) possibly is not a reliable source.Chantern15 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Okay, let's wait. What remains under Sec. 1652 in the Senate Armed Forces Committee's version of the NDAA 2022? Perhaps we can mention that. Furthermore, the statement about PBB was just an invitation to open an inquiry into the subject, it wasn't to prematurely state that PBB has been revived under another name.Chantern15 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

It hasn't even passed the Senate yet. This is all premature. MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No doubt, we can add that information once the senate passes it.Chantern15 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

(ec) And yet you started this section with the subject title "Project Blue Book To Come Back?" and directly referred to Project Blue Book in your initial post. In any case, let's wait until such a department-wide (whatever that means) office is established before mentioning it in this article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in making a talk page title interesting and inviting, if it means that people will be motivated to do research. Because, say if a UFO enthusiast on seeing this title comes up with reliable sources for inclusion into this page, say, when the senate passes the NDAA 2022, it would help in improving the UAPTF article. Furthermore, department-wide is wording used in the House bill as passed under Sec. 1652, this implies a department-wide, as in a defense department-wide office for consolidating and synchronizing (synchronizing, wording taken from the bill) information collection (US Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, Space Force, etc.) and for collaborating with allies (as mentioned in the concerned section) to determine what these unidentified aerial phenomena are. If this survives the senate vote, then we should expect a project with similar scope as when Project Blue Book first started out, where it had almost the highest priority classification for a project in the DOD.Chantern15 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Late 2022 report

New report is incoming, and appears to be assessing most of the detections as terrestrial in origin. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This news has failed to trigger the media bombardment the original stories got. Very predictable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. If the video report accompanying this is any indication, the mainstream media still retains a certain taste for Tales to Astonish. If only Ant Man could be seen riding one of those balloons craft. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Name change and article reorganization

I have moved the article name to "All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office" and changed the lede to reflect it. I have also reorganized the article, moving historical information to the bottom, extracting organizational information about AARO into its own section, and advancing its findings and the public's reactions to the top. I believe this should make the article easier to read and maintain. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I also changed the lede to mention UFO before UAP, given that the term is more common. I believe the recent NDAA 2023 changes it again to "unidentified anomalous phenomena" to more explicitly include those things flying through water and whatnot. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

Regarding this material that is being edit-warred in: the Brennan quote is not appropriate as it pushes the mystery/alien angle as a primary viewpoint, denigrates Mick West as a "debunker" and editorializes that "optic professionals have declined to comment". Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS, so you need to discuss this here rather than WP:EW edit war. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

An ANI discussion has been created here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

2023 Updates

It seems like there should be a number of updates to this article that as yet haven’t been made. The findings of the recent report aren’t presented, various recent and notable statements from members of Congress specifically related to AARO aren’t mentioned, the White House’s apparently competing UAP study group is absent, anything related to “balloongate” and the office’s involvement, the letter to the DoD from Congress demanding appropriate funding for AARO is omitted, the pre-peer review paper co-written by the head of AARO and Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb, etc. All of those are important and certainly noteworthy developments. 2601:646:8701:BF30:C536:B157:BC0C:8E31 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

All of those are important and certainly noteworthy developments. Or not. Per WP:BRD you made a bold edit, the edit was reverted (twice, by different editors), and rather than restoring the content again you should stick with discussing the content here. If, after that discussion, consensus is in your favor, the content will be included in the article. I support keeping that content out of the article until it becomes truly notable, meaning that it gains sufficiently significant attention. The single, poorly written article you cited is insufficient. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What? What edit did I make? When? What citation? And among other things, how is the report that AARO came out with not relevant to AARO? Are you replying to the right person? Betaparticle1002 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright well given your references to edits and citations I didn’t make I’ll assume you’re confusing me with someone else. And certainly including the sole report that AARO came out with and the contents thereof isn’t controversial in an article about AARO. And it’s a primary source. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A “pre-peer review paper co-written by the head of AARO” is not “a report by the AARO”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That wasn’t what the “report by AARO” was referencing. You do realize that AARO released its report earlier this year, right? The Loeb thing is also the least significant of the slew of things I mentioned. There have been a number of significant developments. That’s the whole reason I labeled this “2023 updates”. The most recent date I can find in the article is from more than a half a year ago. I’m getting the impression that people aren’t aware of a number of things that have transpired. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright well seeing how this article is pretty out of date and significantly lacking in information (the “Findings” section doesn’t even actually include any findings made by the office), I’ll add some stuff when I have the time (including the primary source of the actual report). Betaparticle1002 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you replying to the right person? What edit? What citation? Betaparticle1002 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The clickbaity Independent article makes only the weakest connection to the topic of this article (the AARO). The majority of it focuses on a paper by Avi Loeb, which may fit better at his BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Independent

According to Wikipedia, The Independent is indeed a reliable source. Not sure why the information in the article was deleted.

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining, in plain English, why the Independent article is inappropriate for this entry? It directly mentions the AARO as well as a report released by the same. I'm curious as to why you feel this information is UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:2480:9667:C26D:9264 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple sources referring to this report. It's not just The Independent. Not trying to start an argument. Genuinely confused as to why this information would be UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:2480:9667:C26D:9264 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure this doesn't belong but what other reliable sources are there covering this? From what I can tell it has been a staple of tabloid media but isn't one of the crazy stories that most more serious media i.e. RS has decided to give oxygen to. Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you mean by a "staple of tabloid media". Nonetheless,user:Deathlibrarian did an excellent job of updating the article with additional reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:2480:9667:C26D:9264 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion below - Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Mick West

Mick West is described here as a "science writer". Is that primarily what he is known for? I thought he was mainly known as a sceptic investigator? Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen him described as both. The most accurate phrasing would probably be "skeptic and science writer". On his youtube page he describes himself as "a debunker, skeptic, writer, UFO investigator, and former video game programmer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:2480:9667:C26D:9264 (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, OK that seems sensible. I'll make the change. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Just having a look now, mostly he is described as a "writer" rather than "science writer". Science Writer may imply he is a scientist... I don't think he is? Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

AARO report

I added a section here about a report that AARO reportedly released, written by the head of AARO and a co-author. It was removed by User:Bakkster Man but I agree, probably for the correct reasons. While some articles referred to it as an AARO report, it really only exists as a draft article, and there is nothing to indicate it is in fact an AARO report. Clearly if it was an AARO report it would belong on this page, but at this stage, that doesn't seem to be the case, despite being referred to as such by some different RS. I guess we wait until this is properly published as an AARO report before it is mentioned in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I would note that despite the IP implying RS were added, AFAICT no RS were added other than the Independent which has already been mentioned [1]. If we look at the sources, one is Forbes sites which is a SPS per WP:RSPS. Although this concerns a paper written by two easily identifiable individuals even if we put aside the BLP concerns, there's no reason to think Eric Mack is a subject matter expert. Another is Yahoo News which is actually just republishing Fox News which again per RSPS is not an RS for science. GIANT FREAKIN ROBOT [2] a site which apparently focuses on entertainment, tech news and pop science is also unlikely to be an RS for science. UNILAD is the final source which as our article says has a reputation for "trivial lad-focused videos" and they themselves [3] say "Launched in 2014, UNILAD is a major youth platform for breaking news and relatable viral content." so again unlikely to be an RS for science. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I don't mind the section getting pulled, because it doesn't seem to be an actual AARO report. From reading WP:RSPS seems some Forbes stuff is RS, and other is not - but yes, as you say, this particular one isn't RS, nor are most of the other references. Giant Freakin Robot does cover science, but the science contributor for this article isn't what I would call a science writer. I'll need to go off and get some better RS from the commercial databases. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we have agreed that the recent article waiting to be peer reviewed is not a report by AARO. Is there other reports by AARO we need to add here to the article? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like AARO released a report on the 12th of Jan, 2023, but I've got no RS for it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf

Its exclusion is the major flaw of the article. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Here’s another source to the letter written 16 Senators requesting appropriate funding for AARO.

https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/e/fe2fe2af-91d0-48e4-8139-732e3ceb7e94/BF26246F196F6C39F519D398CBB5A6D2.aaro-funding-letter.pdf

There’s loads that should be added. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally covers what the press covers. Links to primary sources don't help, we need secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, not every report from every government agency gets covered, nor should it. We're an encyclopedia, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Was there anything generally notable in that particular report? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If AARO puts out a significant report, it is definitely valid for it to be included on the AARO article, but yes, it does need secondary sources to verify it/establish. I initially saw the report (https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf) and thought it was by ODNI but reading the text, its actually by ODNI AND AARO. Betaparticle1002 as per Mr Ollie, it would be good to have some RS secondary material discussing it, I'm happy to assist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

At the time AARO at the time existed under the ODNI. Various programs operate under various overarching organizations. IIRC the Manhattan Project was under the Department of Energy, for example.

Here are some.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/13/1149019140/ufo-report

https://www.space.com/pentagon-2022-ufo-uap-report

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/new-ufo-report-number-incidents-reported-increasing/story?id=96389000

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/more-than-350-new-ufo-sightings-added-to-us-government-records-180981466/

I must admit I’m a bit confused by the apparent pushback from some for including a report the office itself made. None of these secondary ones were hard to find at all. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The office producing any old report is not in-and-of itself notable, hence the question of what was actually notable this year. The increase in reports through destigmatizing the topic is probably the most notable element to include, and probably the breakdown of attribution. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It was the first report, and was widely reported on. Wikipedia uses secondary sources as a way to determine notability right? There was a wide range of things in the report those sources found notable. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was the second report, but it might have been the first regular annual report by AARO instead of the previous name. Either way, feel free to WP:FIXIT. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The first report was by the precursor organization UAPTF. That was disbanded and replaced by AARO. The article needs a lot of work. I’ll add stuff when I have some time. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Nor did I say it should. But the article itself is severely lacking in information. People here are confused as to what the report was or if it even exists yet. Like I mentioned elsewhere, the “Findings” section doesn’t actually list any actual findings by the organization that the article is about. It’s really outdated. There are a number of things of note in the report, which is the sole report the office has ever come out with. It was also reported on by a number of news organizations.

As far as primary sources not helping, I would invite you to look up the references sections for climate change or Covid 19. There’s an overwhelming amount of primary sources. You can’t just eliminate primary sources whenever. I’m not gonna write an article about the Declaration of Independence without a reference to the actual text of the Declaration of Independence. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There’s an overwhelming amount of primary sources. This statement makes me think you're misunderstanding what we're talking about, since I don't see lots of primary sources on either article. You might benefit by reading Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you claiming that scientific papers aren’t primary sources? Betaparticle1002 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the paper. Review articles aren't, case studies are. MrOllie (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

And how many case studies are there on the page, for instance, for COVID 19?

Cmon now. We should all know that a report written by the office that the very article is about is a primary source relevant to that office. How many hoops are we gonna jumpy through here? Betaparticle1002 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any case studies.

We need secondary sources to provide context and to indicate what's worth reporting. There are thousands of government reports produced by the US federal government every year, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about them. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:PST Betaparticle1002 (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

So one report that was widely reported on about the specific subject the article is about now equates to an indiscriminate collection of information on federal agencies? This is just bad faith editorializing. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Have fun arguing with that strawman, I'm done here. MrOllie (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is what it is, unfortunately. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Ollie, we need secondary articles to discuss the report, to give it context. However, that's no big deal, we just need to find some secondary sources that do that. There isn't some big volume of reports being put out by the AARO, so I don't see that as an issue in this article's case. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes it’s the first and only report, and I posted some links to several stories on it by a number of new organizations. There are quite a few. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I just had a look, you're right, there's lots, more than I thought there would be. I've added them to the article. I've kept it brief, I think a para or two is probably enough for it, to keep it balanced. If I find some more good ones, I'll toss them in. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Unusual flight characteristics"

I was hoping we could avoid this, but I guess not, so here we go. This is a line in the report AARO made:

"This initial characterization better enables AARO and ODNI to efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports. Some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis."

This information was reported on by a number of reputable news sources. It's also almost identical in content to the sentence already in this article, about the report issued by the precursor organization the UAPTF:

"The report said that 18 of these featured unusual movement patterns or flight characteristics, and that more analysis was needed to determine if those sightings represented breakthrough technology".

The user MrOllie deleted my addition that quoted the section "UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis" in relation to the 171 uncharacterized reports, supposedly because it lacks context, and because "woo".

This is a direct quote from the report. It was reported on by multiple reputable news organizations that are already cited in the article, including on the line I originally put the edit. It's effectively identical in content to something already currently in the article. If it's really, really, desired, I can keep stacking citations on the quote. If MrOllie thinks it's "woo" that's a personal determination that they made. It's not my quote, I didn't include it in a misleading or manipulative way, and I didn't write the articles that reported on it. Editorialization by omission because of personally-held beliefs is not appropriate. What is a way of referencing it that would be acceptable? Is there one? I suspect not. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

How many of these do we need for this one particular quote for some reason? 10? 20?

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/13/1149019140/ufo-report

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/more-than-360-new-ufo-cases-have-been-reported-to-us-intelligence-agencies-since-march-2021.html

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/more-than-350-new-ufo-sightings-added-to-us-government-records-180981466/

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/14/ufo-sightings-2022-report

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/12/ufo-sightings-pentagon-review/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-receives-350-new-reports-ufo-sightings-rcna65631

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2023/01/12/new-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-report-adds-hundreds-of-new-uap-sightings-by-military/?sh=52bbd3ef2456

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64252340

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3811717-aliens-or-spies-what-to-make-of-the-governments-new-ufo-report/

https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-congressman-ufo-coverup-government-tim-burchett-1774007

https://www.deseret.com/2023/1/13/23553572/pentagon-ufo-uap-report

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/12/spy-agencies-report-hundreds-ufo-sightings-00077758

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ruling-out-aliens-senior-us-general-says-not-ruling-out-anything-yet-2023-02-13/ Betaparticle1002 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Your version suggests that some had common explanations and the unattributed ones will not. But the report also says (Many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty), or how the sources are covering it: Phys.org writes The report said many of those still unexplained reports could stem from weather phenomena, faulty sensors, or erroneous analysis by humans.. Reuters adds But the Pentagon says it has not found evidence to indicate Earthly visits from intelligent alien life.. The BBC It goes on to say that 171 sightings still remain "uncharacterised and unattributed" - meaning, not enough information was collected to effectively identify them.. Omitting this context misleads the reader. MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

PS: Let's try to avoid having a replay of Talk:Pentagon UFO videos/Archive 3, the issues are almost identifcal here. MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the edit :

"with an unspecified number of these uncharacterized reports featuring UAP that 'appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.'"

That does not suggest "the unattributed ones will not". It's a fact that was included in the report and widely, widely reported on. Your judgement that it's "woo" is the issue here. That is a personal opinion, and motivates your desire to omit that one particular line.

If you read the section, you'd see the first part of it includes "insufficient data to reach any conclusion". The section also states "The report also noted that some of the cases could be as a result of sensors not working correctly." Did you really read the entire section?

You're editorializing. What version would you support that doesn't purposefully omit that quote? You want to include more quotes from the report and other articles? Great let's add them. Because right now it seems like you'd rather delete information that doesn't conform to a particular narrative, and that's a problem. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's your version without the misleading chop of the first bit of the sentence: While many of the reports had common explanations, 171 reports remain “uncharacterized and unattributed”, with an unspecificied number of these uncharacterized reports featuring UAP that "appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis." - MrOllie (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's manipulating the quotes to imply something they don't actually say. MrOllie (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you must somehow believe so. What misleading chop? I just included what I edited. The first part of that sentence wasn't written by me. Do you think it was? It was accurate depiction and didn't need changing. What's woo? What's your definition of woo? You want the whole section? That's possible to do.

"Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has formulated and started to leverage a robust analytic process against identified UAP reporting. Once completed, AARO’s final analytic findings will be available in their quarterly reports to policymakers. AARO’s initial analysis and characterization of the 366 newly-identified reports, informed by a multi-agency process, judged more than half as exhibiting unremarkable characteristics:

 26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or UAS-like entities;

 163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities; and

 6 attributed to clutter.2

Initial characterization does not mean positively resolved or unidentified. This initial characterization better enables AARO and ODNI to efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports. Some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.

The majority of new UAP reporting originates from U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force aviators and operators who witnessed UAP during the course of their operational duties and reported the events to the UAPTF or AARO through official channels. Regardless of the collection or reporting method, many reports lack enough detailed data to enable attribution of UAP with high certainty."

What do the quotes actually say then? How, specifically, would you include the quotes? You're not coming up with anything. Please tell me you don't just delete information you don't like. Because that's editorialization. And you're bringing up "woo" and "aliens" and clearly years-long feuds. This doesn't scream objectivity to me. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure some of the references refer to the "appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis." bit. If it's referenced to by RS, I can't see any reason why it can't go in. I'll have a look and see what the references say about it. It's hardly groundbreaking stuff, its been said before plenty of times. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

They do. All the articles I linked to do. They all include the quote and have various takes on it, which could be referenced. There are more as well. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, no sweat. Just leave it to me, I'll put something together that seems reasonable to us all, based on what the sources say, and I'll take into account Mr Ollie's considerations. Thanks for providing them, and contributing to the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well my concern is that Ollie's "considerations" are motivated by something other than objective Wikipedian standards. They tipped their hand by mentioning "woo" in their edit comment. They should've just kept it to "out of context", which wasn't valid anyway, since what they brought up had already been included by others, including the sentence literally right before my edit (which suggests to me they didn't bother reading the section).

Their own personal assessment of what they consider to be "woo" is driving their desire to keep any mention of the "unusual flight characteristics" quote out of the article; a quote that, as I demonstrated, has been specifically reported on by every major news outlet I can think of, and then some. It's a glaring omission that seems increasingly purposeful. I asked them several times in what manner would they include it, and they remained silent on that.

I purposefully made a minimal edit. Originally I was going to use more quotes, but I thought that would be a problem as well. Worst-case scenario is to put the whole section from the report in I guess, since there are accusations of "manipulating quotes", but that seems silly. If MrOllie wants to specifically describe what they believe to be "woo" and why, and how to include the quote without the "woo", that'd be great. Otherwise I'd appreciate it if things weren't simply deleted without providing a constructive solution. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to accuse Mr.Ollie (or any other contributor) of being biased. FYI, Wikipedia itself favors mainstream scientific views (see WP:QUACKS) and disfavors what is often described as woo, ie. fringe conspiracy, supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific beliefs or points of view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I was accused of manipulating quotes. Is that not an attack, but saying someone is introducing bias is? Will they get the same warning? How does one reference a user breaking Wikipedia’s rules by introducing bias through their editing? Should I reference a rule?

I included a *quote* that was supported by the primary source and secondary sources (I can include many more if so desired). It was already given the context so-referenced by other editors. We can add more if so desired. The quote in question is effectively identical to one already in the article. I’ve asked MrOllie many times to specify what the “woo” is and how one would include the information without it.

Where, specifically, is the woo? How is the quote inappropriate given all I mentioned? I want to avoid adding things that are appropriately supported according to Wikipedia’s guidelines just to have them deleted without any suggestions for improvement beyond just deleting the information. Is there a word in Wikipedia’s vocabulary for that? I imagine there is. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, I've made amendments to the section, to include the mention of the 171 reports with unusual flight characteriists. Hopefully this is a good compromise for all, and will head off any potential edit warring. I have included the assumptions the report states about flaws in reporting, for balance and context - I hope that addresses issues raised. There is abundant RS that refers to the excerpt, which is clearly stated in the report, I've included the best RS, (including BBC, NBC, Smithonian, PBS etc) but there's more if needed. Cheers all! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

AATIP

I've just added in the AATIP as a predecessor organisation, as it was missing from the history section on predecesor orgs. Not sure if there was any reason for that it was omitted in particular, please let me know if it's an issue~ Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sawadoky (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sawadoky (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Mick West a science writer?

Thread from a blocked sock. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone have any records of him writing scientific articles? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I suggest that you start at Mick West. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

AARO report March 2024

@User:Feoffer apparently you have gained a reputation as the only editor of the "GSoW Cabal" who will treat ufos fairly. Perhaps you could add an NPOV paragraph to the article summarizing the latest AARO report when you have a moment. Plenty of sources are available: [4], [5], [6]. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

For any third parties reading this, I should just state that Louie is absolutely joking here. I'm not a member of any organized group to promote Skepticism, I'm just happy that both trusted members of our community and their critcs seem to like my writing style (which I learned from historians of religion.) Feoffer (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To that list of sources one can add this and this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding NYT source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised when I came to this article and didn't find even a mention of today's report. I used the Space.com source identified by LuckyLouie to add a sentence to the lede. That should be expanded into a more detailed accounting of the report, but I thought it was silly not to have even one sentence up there, in a moment when naturally people will be visiting Wikipedia to learn more about AARO. Toughpigs (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)