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. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
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.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Please feel free to edit the text of this to-do list below in order to add proposed categories or details. Each of these entities or events need a summary of purpose, scope, and any conclusions (with attention to their relation or impact on each other as reported in any reliable sources):
Find strong sources for any other reports or entities that are missing above.
Note: a recentism tag was added 4 August 2023 pointing out: "Project Blue Book was an epic expenditure which ended in the Condon Report. This article does not give it appropriate WP:WEIGHT." After further work, this tag was removed 21 August 2023 (with invite for further comment in another talk page section below). However, please give priority to resolving this recentism imbalance when considering the list below of some basic areas for ongoing work on this article.
Jjhake (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of these, "11,917 were found to have been caused by material objects (such as balloons, satellites, and aircraft), immaterial objects (such as lightning, reflections and other natural phenomena), astronomical objects (such as stars, planets, the sun and the moon), weather conditions and hoaxes" while 701 remained "unidentified".
I suspect this is sourced in the next sentence, but Wikipedia style conventions require replicating that source if there is a direct quote like this. So if it is the same source, you'll need to add it again here. Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for noting this. Jjhake (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: with the Robert Sheaffer blog citation that you added today, the conclusions seem close to some of the initial findings of the NASA UAP study team, so we might be able to find a better citation for the same point. In the meantime, can we list Robert Sheaffer as the source of this point within the article text (as this is a primary source from a blog, although the blog of an expert that I do agree is worthwhile to include as a primary source)? Jjhake (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I think the thing that always gets me in these conversations is the breathless "These are still unexplained" but the point is that these are not great observations in the first place that remain unexplained. The best observations get explained quickly. jps (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, makes sense. Jjhake (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the question mark on your "Mistake?" edit comment just now made me wonder if you thought that someone else had reverted your edits. However, the edit history indicates that you accidentally reverted them yourself and then restored them. I just wanted to be sure that you weren't thinking that anyone else was undoing you edits. Jjhake (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was my mistake. jps (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay to remove "slanted towards recent events" tag at top?[edit]
A lot of work has been done on the early history since the "slanted towards recent events" tag was added to the top of this article (and will continue). I'm removing the tag while also inviting any remaining concerns to be shared here on the talk page in case this might be premature. Jjhake (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced that Kirkpatrick is the best image for the lead. It might help to think out of the box on this. For example, from my POV, I would much rather see an infobox listing all of the reports, chronologically sorted by date and primary participants or investigators. I'll keep an eye out for an appropriate template if you don't find one first. From where I stand, I think we should focus on data in the lead, not on images. I understand that others may disagree. Just something that I wanted to comment on. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. It's about historical data as I understand you to be pointing out. Thanks for noting this. Will look around and give it thought but glad if you or others get to it first. Jjhake (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for images in the lede, I'm wondering if some combination of new and old reports might be good. Some examples would be:
1985 UFO Fact Sheet (page 1 of 3) from the U.S. Air Force
Slide 2 of 7 from Sean Kirkpatrick's May 31, 2023 Presentation to NASA Independent Study Team on UAPsJjhake (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's perfectly fine if I'm alone on this, but here's my take: we are dealing with a history of UFO reports. As a reader who is here to gleam as much information as possible in the fastest amount of time, I would prefer an infobox in the lead that gives me the number of reports to date, the names of the reports, the names of the lead investigators, the dates, and their conclusions, in chronological format. I'm not interested in seeing an image of any kind. That's just me, of course, so opinions might differ. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Let's remove any images and go with an infobox or sidebar with this materail. What about a sidebar that could span a series of the existing articles and link them together? Jjhake (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox in the lead should just link to the reports; but you could very well use a topic sidebar. There's no right or wrong way. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm terrible with sidebars and formatting, but I've taken an initial shot at it. I hope others might help to clean it up. I'd like to make it narrower, and there is much more content to consider (as you have noted above). Jjhake (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've clearly got something messed up in how I setup the sidebar template because it does not automatically update on the article whenever the template content is changed. I probably should not have tired something out that I don't know how to do yet. Jjhake (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sidebar doesn’t show up on mobile devices, so I’m inclined to switch to an infobox after all. Jjhake (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a shot at "Infobox historical era" as a first try.--Jjhake (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with infobox experience should feel free to entirely replace the customized shell that I ended up putging into place as I practiced around (which I should have done in a sandbox).--Jjhake (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have a bit more confidence in yourself. You're doing great work and the infobox looks good. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AARO Report (2024-03-08), and responses thereto[edit]
Surely both the AARO report and some of the criticism of it should be reported in the subject Wikipedia article, but I am afraid my Wikipedia editing skills would not do this material justice. KHarbaugh (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
