Talk:UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence)

Name of article
As article creator, I have gone with 'Pentagon UFO Report' as the most common name I'm seeing in the many articles on this subject. This may change in the coming days or weeks. Cheers, all! Jusdafax (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The Pentagon was not the author of the report, the cabinet-level Office of the DNI was, which is not part of the Pentagon. In my opinion, a nine-page preliminary report on any topic does not merit an article. More reports to Congress will be coming. Will each progress report get an article? For now, this should be a section in the UAP Task Force article until a full report, maybe an annual report, is released, then a stand-alone article created.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 14:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The current title, Pentagon UFO Report, violates Article titles aka WP:TITLE.

The report was authored and released on dni.gov by the Office of Director of National Intelligence, which leads the U.S. Intelligence community. It is a U.S. Intelligence UAP Report. The reason why some inept journalists and news editors misnamed it is that the Pentagon has a media room where reporters regularly went to get answers from a Pentagon spokesperson and the UAP Task Force is part  of the Pentagon. But the Task Force did not create or release the report. This article should be renamed and Pentagon UFO Report changed to a redirect. What it should be renamed is open to discussion. Also MOS:MINORWORK indicates the title of the report in the intro should be in quotation marks, not italics.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I may flag this article in the future with a Template:Disputed title once I or we get an alternative proposed title. As this is a still-developing story, I have Google alerts set up to help me monitor for corrections by news media in the weeks and months ahead. Hopefully they will settle on a more accurate name.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the article name is fine per WP:COMMONNAME. The report is referred to as the Pentagon UFO report in most WP:RS. Since we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS it dwells too near into OR territory imo. If someone has any sources mentioning the proper office that prepared the report, please post them. I would be OK with "Director of National Intelligence UFO Report" per Reuters, but it may be too long/specific, and not really a common name. Another title could be "United States Intelligence Community report on UFOs" or something to that effect. The report and some RS mention that it was made from a lot of sources inside the US gov, so I'd say that explains the confusion over the authorship. The report is an assesment into the UAPTF's progress, and the UAPTF is part of the Pentagon, so that's the association most RS appear to have made, and a lot of its coverage was before anyone knew who would author it, so the name stuck.

As to the question if more assesments will merit their articles, that remains to be seen per WP:CRYSTAL, most likely they will be detailed here unless they come up with major findings that are extensively covered in RS. As the first official report regarding this topic since Project Blue Book (or the Condon Committee if that would qualify as official) I think it warrants its own article. This article draws parallels to the Brookings Report which has its own article over barely mentioning the subject. Loganmac (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The ODNI is going to update Congress in 90 days and then provide periodic updates after that. A more accurate title for the article, then, imo, should be an umbrella one. The article could lead with the intro and first section on "Prelimnary Assessment of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" and new sections added as needed on subsequent reports. For the benefit of editors who may not be familiar with it, WP:COMMONNAME is a section within the larger WP:TITLE, which as I quoted above says that inaccurate common names should be avoided. As I write this, the article still does not identify the ODNI as the author of the report or the entity that released it. Also, most of the references currently in the article describing it as a "Pentagon UFO report" are dated before the report was released. I like the titles Loganmac suggested. Other possibilities are "UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence community)" and "UFO Report (Director of National Intelligence)". MOS:ACRODAB and MOS:US allow the abbreviation of United States in parantheses in titles.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 12:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to toss "ODNI UFO Report" into the mix, and endorse the latter of your two suggestions (I actively dislike the former, I'll explain if you ask).
 * I'm still pretty okay with the current title per WP:COMMONNAME, because the inaccuracy is not so much as to bias a reader or give a false impression (may people would say that distinguishing between the ODNI and Pentagon is splitting hairs; I disagree, but I understand why they would say that). But if we can build a consensus to change this to a more accurate title, I'd appreciate that a lot more than sticking with the most common name. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is my major issue with ODNI UFO Report. While the most accurate title, 95% of people have no idea what ODNI even means, even I had to scratch my head for 5 seconds and I follow all intelligence programs. The apparent official name of the document is "ODNI UAP assessment" per Press Secretary John Kirby, make of that what you will tho... and if I had to be pedantic, UFO and UAP are not interchangeable according to whoever made the document, since it specifies UAP to be the broadest term for ANYTHING unidentified in the sky, including potential unmanned aerial vehicles (ie. drones). Loganmac (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my experience in the military has affected my later experiences, but I've never before met someone with even a passing familiarity with the US intelligence community who was not aware of the ODNI. However, I'd note the the majority of my time in the Army was prior to 2004, and I remember the clusterfuck of confusion that the 9/11 commission and the implementation of its recommendations caused wrt to intel and SO units, so it seems unlikely that my experience is unique, or even uncommon.
 * I would also point out that your argument about UFO vs UAP is beside the point; I don't care which of the two terms we use. And the example you provided would apply to both: unidentified, unmanned aerial vehicles would be unidentified flying objects as much as they would be unidentified aerial phenomena.
 * As to the official name: It's right there in the report: "Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena". The ODNI part is attribution.
 * But again: I don't really care all that much about the name. I'd prefer a more accurate name (with the common names provided, and set up as redirects, of course), but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter too much to me, as none of the proposed options create issues for the reader. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I created a ODNI UFO Report redirect, and agree UAP would be the best article title with the UFO title as redirects, but even WP:POVNAME points out we might keep the title if it's a completely ubiquitous name. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Another idea could be naming the article "2021 UAP report", "June 2021 UAP report", or something else along those lines. I don't know if that fits policies though. (Feel free to move this comment to wherever it belongs with indentation.) 70.172.194.25 (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Pentagon UFO report" and Pentagon attribution to the report have been removed from a June 30, 2021 article by Astronomy professor Chris Impey and replaced with "US intelligence report on UFOs." A July 1 editor's note at the bottom reads This article has been updated to clarify that the report was produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Here is the newly revised article and here is the article as it was originally published and still uncorrected on Astronomy.com's website. I believe "Pentagon UFO report" began as a placeholder name invented by Pentagon-beat journalists who did not know what the eventual title would be and who would claim authorship.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 12:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Name of article: discussion break
Points to remember: 1. The word "Pentagon" does not appear anywhere in the nine-page "Preliminary Assessment" government document. 2. The true publisher of the report, the ODNI, is headquartered in MacLean, Virginia, while the Pentagon is in Arlington, Virginia. If the ODNI was located at the Pentagon, then usage could be arguably justified imo. 3. The "Pentagon UFO Report" as a phrase is all but dead in newly written news stories as news organizations realize their initial reporting mistake. It therefore fails any lasting common name use.

It appears that these are the choices for a new encyclopedic name for the article:


 * UAP Report
 * UAP Report (U.S. Intelligence) (U.S. allowed per MOS:ACRODAB and MOS:US)
 * UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence)
 * UAP Report (Office of Director of National Intelligence)
 * UFO Report (Office of Director of National Intelligence)
 * ODNI UFO Report
 * ODNI Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Report

UAP is more accurate, while UFO is what the news media seems to prefer due to its familiarity. However, consider also that UAP has other meanings as a military acronym. If you have any others to propose, please add them to the above list when you comment. Remember, there are more reports coming that will likely be worked into the present article as sections rather than creating new articles for each, so if the name sounds like an umbrella term, that would be useful in the long term. Which name do you like? This is not a formal vote at this stage to rename or not rename the article, just to determine if there is consensus on the best proposed name before going to a next step.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 11:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think we should use neither the acronym UFO nor UAP in the title. We don't need to be overly brief in the title, per WP:CONCISE, nor do we need to initialize if there's possible misunderstanding.
 * I'd normally suggest something more like 2021 Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Report, but UFO might have already stuck as the WP:COMMONNAME. Even searching for "UAP report" in Google News gives primarily UFO in article titles, suggesting it has become the common name. If we want to clarify the source of the report, I'd suggest (U.S. Intelligence) rather than ODNI or its full name. No need to be overly specific, just unambiguous. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Checking search, the use of a year at the beginning of a title appears to be reserved for events and actions rather than objects, so "Report" would become a verb instead of a noun. It could be worded as Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Report, 2021 or ODNI UFO Report, 2021 (example here), but then future reports couldn't be added to the article unless also released in 2021. I've added a new title option that is now my first choice : ODNI Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Report based on there already being similiar usage: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. If the ODNI releases more reports, as expected, they could be added to the existing article. Here's an advanced title search of the use of "Report" in article titles. Wish I had done such a search sooner, but there's no immediate link to the advanced search function.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 11:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Pentagon UFO report" is the handle given by an impressive array of WP:RS so it's not a bad thing to abide by WP:COMMONNAME and give a nod to the principle of least astonishment. As an alternate per Chris Impey, "US intelligence report on UFOs" might work, although less well. There will be other, future reports (as this one is preliminary) so including a date in the title would be disadvantageous. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've changed my mind and now support UAP Report as the original and still current accurate common name for the article. All of the following reliable sources in the list below use "UAP report" either in their titles or in the body of the article. The Pentagon spokesperson on June 1 was even asked about the forthcoming "UAP report" by a reporter. Two U.S. Senators issued offical statements calling it the "UAP Report."


 * Global News May 17, 2021.
 * defense.gov, Pentagon press briefing June 1, 2021 (Q: A quick question on the coming UAP reports. There's been some reporting that this could be coming as soon as this week or maybe even tomorrow, can you say anything about what timing we should actually expect? MR. KIRBY: The what report Matt? Q:  The UAP report?  UFO report? MR. KIRBY: That is really for the DNI to speak to, Matt.  As you know, this is a report -- a Congressionally-mandated report, the DNI is in the lead. It will be DNI who will be making that report, obviously DoD has a role in helping flesh out the information that will be in that report, but as for specific timing I'd refer you to the DNI.)
 * Seti Institute June 8, 2021.
 * The Guardian June 11, 2021.
 * Associated Press June 25, 2021.
 * warner.senate.gov June 25, 2021.
 * rubio.senate.gov June 25, 2021.
 * Washington Post June 25, 2021.
 * Popular Science June 25, 2021.
 * FOX2 KTVU-TV June 25, 2021.
 * San Francisco Chronicle June 26, 2021.
 * The Drive June 26, 2021.
 * The Debrief June 27, 2021.
 * Space.com June 28, 2021.
 * The Conversation June 29, 2021.
 * Discourse magazine George Mason University, June 29, 2021.
 * Globe and Mail Canada, June 30, 2021.
 * The Hill July 4, 2021.
 * WalesOnline UK, July 4, 2021.
 * Cardinal News Illinois, July 8, 2021.
 * NYOOOZ India, July 16, 2021.

WP:COMMONNAME discourages the use of an inaccurate common name in the title if an alternative exists, regardless of RS frequency. Based on the above reliable source evidence and rapidly diminishing use of "Pentagon UFO Report" by mainstream news media, UAP Report or UAP Report (U.S. Intelligence) are better choices for the article title, imo.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you to 5Q5 for providing that extensive list. Considering only their titles and excluding the press releases from senators' offices because they are, well, press releases from senators' offices, of the 19 references cited above 8 mention only UFO, 4 mention only UAP, 6 mention both UFO and UAP, and one mentions neither. Because of that, and per WP:COMMONNAME and the comments of Bakkster Man and LuckyLouie above, I prefer UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence) as the alternate title. Redirects can always be used for the other candidate titles. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence) makes more sense because most readers would begin a site search for "UFO Report" and it also complies with Consistency in article titles, with most Wiki articles on the topic using UFO currently in their titles, and UAP being a new term. "UAP Report" could get a redirect and aka in the intro. There is already a redirect for ODNI UFO Report. The editor who created this article recognized that it might need a rename going forward. I will leave a note on their talk page.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 11:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After reading the above, I also agree, and unless someone comes up with a superior title to this proposal, it should probably be changed in the next few days. Jusdafax (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, could someone with editing skills greater than mine please restore the content I accidentally deleted from this Talk page with this edit? I have no idea how that deletion happened, but I fear any attempt I make to restore the content will produce greater problems. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Consensus is to do a WP:PAGEMOVE from Pentagon UFO Report to UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence). Looks like we are waiting to see if the original page creator Jusdafax will do it. I've never done one and therefore will yield to a more experienced editor for a smooth transition.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 14:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ My experience at page moves is also limited, so if I failed in some way please feel free to fix it. My thanks to all editors concerned. I'm certainly open to discussion if a further proposed change is suggested, but this seems a more accurate title for now. Jusdafax (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible interest - NSA index
Found this NSA index listing, containing a bunch of carbon-copy PDFs of various declassified reports. This may be useful for primary sourcing. I don't know what to do with it, but others here may find it interesting. WhoAteMyButter ( 📨talk │ 📝contribs ) 04:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Categories + Response and analysis
I’ve added well-sourced “Categories” and “Response and analysis” sections to the article, which is generally NPOV, but leans a little heavily towards emphasizing “we don’t know what they are” alarmism, especially in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Researchgate, Peter Baum, etc.
An edit by user Peter Baum promoting an article/report/paper by Peter Baum:. Aside from sourcing issues, there appears to be a potential WP:COI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

NYmag attributed summary under Response And Analysis
Added info from NYmag. . Feel free to revert.18:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15


 * Why remove the link to RADAR spoofing, or to Extraterrestrial Life as mentioned in the article?Chantern15 (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
 * Thanks for using the Talk page. The article barely mentions extraterrestrial life. It's 99.9% about electronic warfare. So WP:DUE comes into play here. And I don't believe we have enough sources to produce a stand alone article about radar spoofing. Unless you do, and plan to write the article, it's better to avoid a redlink at this time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Radar spoofing redirects to the radar jamming page on Wikipedia, so it's not a redlink, atleast I don't think so.Chantern15 (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
 * Radar jamming and radar spoofing are quite different techniques. I don't think the redirect page you are suggesting is a good target, given what the article specifies. (OK, I see there is a mention of "radar deception" at the target page, so that's OK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked on the other Talk page about the Forbes article regarding Navy patents for plasma technology. There is so brief a mention of relevance to the UFO/UAP topic, it could only be added here minimally, however I hope that will satisfy you. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts. I'm satisfied, but more importantly I want to find the truth and represent it, whatever it may be.Chantern15 (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
 * Have you read WP:!TRUTHFINDERS? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This Forbes article (May 2020) might be anachronistic for this mention. That's why my recommendation for an "electronic warfare" section for the article Identification studies of UFOs. After having read Truth and Truthfinders, let me rephrase my statement, I want to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles by making them more verifiable.Chantern15 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
 * Which brings me to my request, allow me to create such a section in the ISUFO article using the last two paragraphs from Response and Analysis section. But I would also like to remove the Forbes reference from this article, as it is anachronistic.Chantern15 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
 * I'm not sure if it is anachronistic, when was the $2.3 trillion relief bill written, 2019 or inbetween end 2019 and June 2020?Chantern15 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
 * The bill was introduced in November 2019, but when was the first time that Forbes reported on the UAPTF? First mention was in June of 2021 according to ForbesAlert , I believe, please correct me if I'm mistaken. If what I have found is true, then I will remove the Forbes paragraph, sorry to undermine your effort, luckylouie, but I will add it to the Electronic Warfare section for the ISUFO article, if nobody has any objection. If you do, please revert.Chantern15 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
 * The original RADAR spoofing was redlinked, but I added Radar jamming and deception back in. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good!Chantern15 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

The Atlantic, The Hill And the Guardian
The following are responses from the atlantic, the hill and the guardian for this report, I know that Wikipedia is not everything, so I leave it to your discretion about whether to include these or not. The Atlantic:, The Hill: and The Guardian: , if not already included, of course.Chantern15 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15