Talk:Unidentified flying object

"AOIAMSG" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Renaming of article to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

Apologies if this has been discussed already but there's nothing visible on the talk page. Unidentifed Anomalous Phenomena redirects here but the term has superceded Unidentifed Flying Object. EG refer to NASA Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Independent Study Team article which includes a redirection to this article. Explanation given in Terminology is 'UAP has seen increasing usage in the 21st century due to negative cultural associations with "UFO"'. A better explanation is that sightings in the 21st century involving objects moving between water, air and space mean a better descriptor than "flying" is warranted. (EG see https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/61120/20260112/ufos-vs-uaps-whats-difference-why-scientists-care.htm)

If this has been discussed previously, why was the decision made to leave the article title? If not, can we consider a change? Jippa99 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That would definitely not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Not a common name.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Article overall too USA-centric and biased

What can be done to detangle the article from incorrect dominance by USA-centric topics and voices? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, but the recent release of government documents on the subject matter definitely conclude that there is life beyond this planet and UFOs are definitely real. There is enough whistleblower reports and enough people coming forward with their own testimony on this subject matter so regardless of the US centric policy of keeping this information from the public domain, it is out there and it is real so their mission has failed for the most part and an honor. We discharged third generational soldier myself. Kingjames52 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

the recent release of government documents on the subject matter definitely conclude that there is life beyond this planet and UFOs are definitely real I do not think any of that is true, but if you have independent, reliable, secondary sources that support those claims (see WP:RS, along with WP:FRINGE and its subsection WP:FRIND), I would be happy to be proven wrong. Please share those sources here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Sentence seems wrong

Quote "with those taking seriously the prospect that UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin dismissing those who consider UFOs to be worth studying as 'narrow-minded, biased, obstinate, and cruel'".
Should that read "to be not worth studying"? ~2026-48065-26 (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

That entire paragraph is far too quote heavy, undersourced, and written with the grace of a ham hock drunk on rum. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 06:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person May be, but if it remains it should make sense. Does it make sense as it stands?

Also, should "more–densely" be "more-densely"? ~2026-48065-26 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

What image? What video?

Quote: "Science writer and skeptic Mick West suggested the image..." "...West provided his detailed analysis of the video." What image? What video? Are they even the same thing? We are told he has explained it/them, but not what was actually reported. Is this unbiased presentation? ~2026-48065-26 (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)