Talk:Unidentified flying object

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

Request to add an External link

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)

It's a preprint. So, we should wait until it is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition to being available for free online at academia.edu, at the same time (this past May) it was published as an 8¼ x 11½ x 1¼" softcover book by UPIAR (see http://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?artID=201), so it has been in print for four months. 96.58.40.194 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I notice that James Oberg gave it a very positive review, and yet...the compendium editor is an amateur researcher, and the publisher UPIAR is actually a website that also sells UFO-themed T-shirts as well as books and magazines that range from serious to the sensational and fringe perspective. So I'd like to see indication of mainstream notability, perhaps further and more public endorsements a la Oberg are out there? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither the editor nor the other authors are receiving any remuneration for having created this collection of journal-style papers and there is no budget for advertising to spread the word. But from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-forensic-view/202305/psychology-and-the-flying-saucer-people 96.58.40.194 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest also considering the book's "About the Contributors" section (pp. 697-710). And the International Journal of Ecopsychology (IJE), published by The Press at Cal Poly Humboldt (California State Polytechnic University) has just recommended the book (see the 3rd from last and last of the listed Articles/PDFs). 96.58.40.194 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A very positive review appears on pp. 9-10 of the new issue of The Skeptical Intelligencer, the quarterly magazine of the Association for Skeptical Enquiry (ASKE). 96.58.40.194 (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh my. I see someone's been busy adding this as an EL to several Wikipedia articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As if there is something inappropriate about this landmark reference book being listed? 96.58.40.194 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that re: the template. I followed the instructions as I (mis)interpreted them. 96.58.40.194 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added comments (on Sept. 20 and 24) with two more endorsements. But is this current edit request "dead" such that comments subsequent to yours of Sept. 16 are not being be seen by you guys (due to the "answered" parameter now being set to "yes")? If not, I am content to patiently await more endorsements and hopefully an eventual positive consensus. But if this request is "dead," should I reset the parameter back to "no"? Should I resubmit my request from scratch (without using the template)? 96.58.40.194 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but yes you can simply start another request or change the parameter to "no" to try it again. XeCyranium (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Cornell university proves UFO's are real by agreeing with pictures. 207.177.214.86 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is the crashed ufo in? 2601:244:417D:3F20:D831:FAFB:78FC:764D (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Which of the many crashed UFO stories do you mean?Skeptic2 (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Restructuring article?

How much willingness would there be among OGs familiar with this topic to restructure the article? I think there are a lot of places where the info cited to WP:RS is at odds with the way the article is organized. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• If most UFOs are just yet-to-be-identified flying objects, then the article could include a gallery of common/notable misidentifications: Talk:Unidentified flying object/Sandbox
• A lot of the article's organization is confusing.
• The top sections should probably be on the etymology and the scientific consensus. The "Etymology of key terms" section is kind of buried and the information in it is somewhat chaotic. "Prosaic explanations" is both buried and kind of weak.
• The "Astronomer reports" section should probably be removed. This seems like a rebuttal to "Ufo people are goobers." The article doesn't need to frame UFO people as goobers, and it definitely doesn't need a character witness section to rebut that. The Andrew Fraknoi quote is fine, but could go into another section.
• Much of the "Investigations of reports" section should just be a table with countries, programs, dates, refs, and links where available.
• What is the "Studies" section meant to contain?
• A big issue is that a lot minor detail is packed into a high-level article. There are some important things missing from the article, but it's already over 9,000 words. A step below UFO there is: flying saucer, alien abduction, ufology, UFOs in fiction, UFO conspiracy theories, several lists, Investigation of UFO reports by the United States government, Extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis, and so on. A lot of this fine-grained detail needs to be sorted out in the sub-articles.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The section featuring astronomers is an example of what I call a "POV quilt": reliably sourced tidbits added sequentially over time both in support and rebuttal of a particular viewpoint that form a kind of patch work, making an article read as if it is arguing with itself. Good call removing it and other similar constructions. As far as rewriting and restructuring, your improvements are welcome. I'm sure if others have a beef with your efforts they will say so here on the Talk page. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Renewed request to mention an important book

Please see (above) the expired topic titled "Request to add an External link." I suggest reconsidering your reluctance to give this book its due. In addition to the already offered reasons, a very favorable review by Kevin Randle (posted here) appears in the Fall 2024 issue (Vol. 38, No. 3) of Journal of Scientific Exploration. It seems to me that his concluding paragraph alone offers sufficient justification. SaucerDown (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ballester Olmos, the editor of the book, is a serious and well-informed researcher and I would support the inclusion of a link to it. Skeptic2 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)