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

Richard Doty - Statements Made by Governmental Employees

I added a small portion concerning the allegations made by Richard Doty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanwilliams101 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't he former DIA agent in charge disinformation gave the story of Project Serco exchange program between US Government of Planet Earth and Grey Alien/Ebens live on Planet in the Zeta Reticuli Star system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkunreal93 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Project Blue Book files

The whole Project Blue Book files (+10,000 documents) will be available on Commons soon. See c:Category:Project Blue Book. Yann (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Full matter 106.221.187.53 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

UAP should the page be named UAP now since US Government and mainstream media calling it that?

US Government new name for UFOs Rkunreal93 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not automatically follow the euphemisms a few gullible people in the government of some random country happen to invent.

It follows what reliable sources write, and they have not switched over to the neologism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

UFO, as this article notes, was a term invented by the U.S. government, and many reliable sources now use UAP. I'm genuinely perplexed by why you insult some nameless crowd as "gullible" when this is a very normal and matter-of-fact history of a government trying to speak technically about a zone of the unknown or unidentified while many others turn the unknown into folklore. The insulting terms used to browbeat and thereby maintain the bizarrely narrow categories in this UFO article are sad and are clearly preventing Wikipedia from accurately reflecting recent history in both the realms of government policy and popular folklore related to the broad and sprawling topic. Jjhake (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is in your comment there. See WP:RECENTISM. We need to aim toward a long-term, historical view. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The way Wikipedia behaves (Very Pseudo-Skeptic like) one wonders if they have made an alliance with the Pseudo-skeptical organisation, PSYCOP? It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they had! MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Rkunreal93, you're asking a perfectly valid question, and it's a disservice to readers in several ways when I look at how one-sided and narrow-minded the history of editing on this article appears to be. Jjhake (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a disservice to other editors to describe their work that way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve seen so much narrow-minded ignorance in this area along some of the most active editors. They don’t have respect for some of the important layers like folklore, popular entertainment, or technical military questions and are only interested in hard debunking (which I agree is critical but which is not the full picture as found in the full range of scholarship on this topic when considered from multiple fields). Jjhake (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve seen so much narrow-minded ignorance in this area along some of the most active editors. I invite you to read WP:NPA. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake They Want to Believe Rkunreal93 (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the most commonly used name, not the most recent name. MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie I think UFO better but page should be named both interchangeable. Rkunreal93 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Articles only have one title, that is how the wiki software works. We install redirects or disambiguation notes for synonyms. That has already been done here, so there is no need to make any changes. MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie Ok is there information about Grey Aliens who allegedly crashed in Roswell New Mexico July 1947 is it under Conspiracy Theories? Rkunreal93 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We just had a conversation about this topic in the section above ^^ Miserlou (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This should be included, but @LuckyLouie and @JoJo Anthrax does not think so:

NASA has declared that it will refer to such events as anomalous since they are not considered aerial-only, to be "consistent with the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, signed into law on December 23, 2022".

I suggest that instead of just removing, factual relevant information regarding the acronym, that they edit the page like good wikipedians, and enlighten users about the ways of the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Lobner (talk • contribs)

References

@Lobner: it looks like you are missing a signature above. Can you place one back in above so that this thread remains more readable? There is a definition or terminology section in the article that would be the place to start, and then the lede should very succinctly summarize what is agreed upon in that section of the article body.--Jjhake (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The NASA doc that Lobner wants to include already exists in the article as a cited reference (#88). The US-centric rationale for UAP vs UFO and the shift from 'aerial' to 'anomalous' already exists in the article in multiple places, and is appropriately cited to secondary sources. This is a case of a relatively inexperienced user who is unfamiliar with WP:LEAD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

My explanation for removing that content is here, in another section of this Talk page. To summarize: the US government, its laws, and its agencies do not have standing to (re)define the general term UFO, which has been used for a long time and remains in common use worldwide. The US government's chosen/current vernacular is already mentioned in this article and elsewhere, and it is not (or at least not yet) so prominent as to merit presentation in the lead. @Lobner: As for I suggest that instead of just removing, factual relevant information regarding the acronym, that they edit the page like good wikipedians, and enlighten users about the ways of the wiki, going forward I strongly suggest that you focus your comments on content, not on contributors. Please read, and familiarize yourself with, the guideline WP:AGF and the policy WP:PA. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

content added just now in the history of the "20th century and after" section

All, rather than just grumble and grump vaguely on the talk page here (as I have above recently), I tried to write up a history that gives a fuller and less exclusively polemical picture of this very long and messy UFO story in the United States (and beyond at this point). I'm dropping a note here to invite questions and requests from any other editors about this added content in this section as I know a little about the discipline of history but not much about UFOs or Wikipedia writing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#20th_century_and_after

I hope that some of it might be helpful on this topic. --Jjhake (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Bill Ellis, another Penn State university folklore professor with UFO publications

I was surprised a few weeks back to find nothing in this voluminous Wikipedia article from Penn State professor Greg Eghigian. I'm finding another Penn State professor (emeritus), Bill Ellis, who has a specialization in contemporary folklore to also be absent despite several helpful books and articles on the topic. This critical approach through history and cultural studies seems glaringly absent in this article overall, and I hope that others will pick up on this and help. Jjhake (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Non-Human Intelligence" (NHI)

First they renamed it to UAP. Now they call it NHI. What's up with all the renaming recently? Call it by another name just to confuse people or is it to deflect Freedom Of Information requests that must explicitly say UFO vs UAP vs NHI vs ...<yet unknown abbreviations> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foerdi (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If you’re interested in the history of “non-human” as a term, it’s used heavily in Diana Walsh Pasulka‘s 2019 book with Oxford UP which is interesting at several levels. Jjhake (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My dog is non-human, and very intelligent. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean it is again the Russians putting poor dogs inside flying crafts and sending these into US airspace to create UFO mass panic? I had the feeling Putin loved dogs ... Foerdi (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Sorry folks. I had to revert the article to a version prior to noted copyright violations [1]. I can provide more details if necessary, but I would rather not identify any particular editor at this point. Please feel free to continue editing this article. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for catching my failure there to properly quote my hero Greg Eghigian. Jjhake (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"noted copyright violations"

Where were these alleged copyright violations noted?

What were they?

I notice that in the diff to which you linked

you made a number of editorial changes that seem to have nothing to do with copyright violations.

I don't want to dispute those, but it seems disingenuous to label all those changes as related to copyright violations.

Do you disagree? KHarbaugh (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

All revisions that contained copyright violations should be reverted, that's how it is done on Wikipedia. Actually, they should be deleted from the history as well. @Steve Quinn:, you should add a {{Copyvio-revdel}} template to the page to request that. Or alternatively, provide a url for the source that was infringed and I can do it. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: thanks for giving the above editor the straight story. As for myself, I am not familiar with dealing with a large copyvio as happened in this instance. I only knew enough to revert the page. If you could add the tag, it would be much appreciated. And I will watch what you do. I will have to ferret out the url's from which the plagiarism occurred if that is needed. This certainly needs to be dealt with. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is the url for one source that was infringed: [2]. I will have to find the other one. I am assuming two urls can be added to the template.---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is the other one: [3]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the template, and admin should be along in a bit. MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

20th century section

Individuals who are scientists may say things to newspapers but scientific journals show no “controversy” about UFOs whatsoever. We really should not assert in Wikipedia’s voice In addition to these controversies within the sciences. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense. I'm sure this attempt to correct isn't the best, but I took a shot: In addition to these considerations about data collection and analysis within the sciences... Jjhake (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I would resist the urge to create smooth-sounding transitions in Wikipedia's voice that characterize what came before and connect it to what's coming next. Leave it to the historians to "connect the dots". US government agencies like NASA may have scientists on staff, but that doesn't mean UFOs are being given attention "within the sciences". I'd leave that transition out altogether. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. One of the three transitions that you removed just now was reflected in a couple of the secondary sources, but the principle makes sense. The many news stories about NASA's UAP study team reference NASA's sated purpose of bringing the rigors of the science method (and such phrases) to the task of UAP data collection and analysis, but I see how this is a very different thing from such analysis showing up within scientific journals and how my phrasing implied the second. Jjhake (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Style notes

@Jjhake: Loving a lot of your contributions here, but please try to avoid over reliance on quotations. Many of the things you are including as quotations can be summarized or paraphrased without direct quotes. Only include quotes if it is important to the editorial point and cannot be handled any other way. So, for example, when emphasizing an opinion, a unique phrasing, or a longform analytical idea. Simple facts do not need to be attributed to a single person and, indeed, runs somewhat afoul of WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That is helpful. Thank you. In so far as others don't get to it ahead of me, I'll plan to circle back through and summarize or paraphrase where direct quotes are not an opinion, etc. Jjhake (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you've got a good start on it already. Thanks. Jjhake (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Description of Greg Eghigian’s forthcoming UFO history with Oxford UP

Looks very good! Long wait. Description posted here:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/after-the-flying-saucers-came-9780190869878?cc=us&lang=en& Jjhake (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Difference between "Investigations of reports" and "Studies"?

What is the difference between these two large, sprawling, and redundant main sections in the article body?

• Investigations of reports
• Studies

I can think of several differences, but it would help to start cutting down on some redundancy in the article body if these two main sections were consolidated under a common main heading. Thoughts? I'll also look through talk page archives some more to see if this organization has been talked about before. Jjhake (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Definition

Re this revert. That definition is pertinent to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office article and may be included there. This article is about UFOs in general, not just US government based perspectives. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Does this really belong in the lead? Someone please assist this new user with understanding how to use en.wikipedia.org. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed that content from the lede. It just doesn't fit there, as this is a general article about UFOs. The current perspective/vernacular of NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, etc. (or indeed any government) can perhaps be mentioned later in the article, but prominently presented in the lead as if it has definitive standing? No. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion is taking place in this section above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

time to move to UAP

Socks don't get to start threads -- Ponyobons mots 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the more comprehensive term of Unidentified Anomolous Phenomenon, given its being used in numerous articles, is it time to change the main title to UAP? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC) No. Most all reliable sources for this topic have used, and continue to use, the term UFO. Perhaps a name-change will be appropriate when and if that situation ever changes. See earlier discussions on this Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) CBS and CNN are using UAP. Given that UAP actually covers not only Aerial/flying objects, but also submersive, outer space, etc, why do you think we shouldn't use the more comprehensive term? Also US congress is using the term UAP. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-are-uaps-unexplained-aerial-phenomenon-ufos-new-name/ https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/07/26/exp-space-uap-congress-aliens-fst-072612pseg1-cnni-us.cnn Lonestar-physicist (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC) High ranking DOD officials are also using this term more and more: https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/ "Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. " Lonestar-physicist (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC) This notion has already been discussed here and consensus was that recent emergence of the term 'UAP' in the United States has not suddenly eliminated the longstanding global context and use of the term 'UFO'. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC) it's a changing situation. So "longstanding global context" is more important than being more accurate and comprehensive? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC) That is a false dichotomy. As has been suggested to you twice already, please read the prior discussions on this Talk page. I also suggest that you read WP:CONSENSUS, which describes the fundamental model through which article content on Wikipedia is decided/determined by editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Yes I have read that. Do you have anything to back up your claims that it's a false dichotomy or is it just your opinion? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia operates by consensus, and policy-based rationales on Talk pages are given the most credence rather than internet debating skills. A relevant policy for this discussion is WP:COMMONNAME. As discussed earlier on this Talk page, the term 'UFO' is the most common name for this particular topic as evidenced by the vast majority of cited sources both current and historical that use it. 'UAP' may someday be the defacto term for the topic, but until it is, we stick with the current one. Wikipedia naturally 'drags its feet' and never leads the charge, preferring to wait for a vast majority of reliable sources to reflect fundamental shifts in terminology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC) so facts are secondary to arbitrary wikipedia policies? weird. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) The 'facts' confirm that UFO is still by far the common name, and Wikipedia goes by the common name. As do most sources - that's why it's common. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC) ok if you say so... Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) is there a way to conduct a poll on wikipedia to see what other editors think who may not feel comfortable discussing this due to stigma? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC) No, we don't base content decisions on secret ballots. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC) not secret ballots. public ballots. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I invite editors to vote on this public poll: "Fiat determinatio per omnes populos" https://poll-maker.com/poll4919153x6D5d40Ef-152 Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Please don't waste people's time with off-site polling that could not possibly be used here. MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I'm not mandating this or making people participate in this poll. you're welcome to not participate. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC) please stay on the subject and don't make this personal. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Should UFO/UAP be moved to a more apropriate top section?

Socks don't get to start threads -- Ponyobons mots 19:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

given recent developments and announcement by DOD deputy, should UAPs move to a new top section eg. National Security? right now it's categorized under hoaxes! https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/? from the article: "When asked why she went all-in on prioritizing AARO as an element under her purview, particularly now, Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. DOD is focusing through AARO to better understand UAP, and improve our capabilities to detect, collect, analyze and eventually resolve UAP to prevent strategic surprise and protect our forces, our operations, and our nation.” Lonestar-physicist (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) not to mention White house John Kirby also said UAP are affecting military training. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You are using unusual terminology. What does "should UAPs move to a new top section eg. National Security" mean? What is a "top section" supposed to be, and how do UAPs "move" there? And what is "categorized under hoaxes"? Category:Hoaxes does not seem to contain anything like that. I cannot even tell whether you are talking about improving the article Unidentified flying object or not. If not, you are in the wrong place. If yes, with "top section" you could mean the lead or lede, the part which starts with "An unidentified flying object (UFO), or" and ends with "understandable with psychosocial explanations." In that case, UAP is already there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I think I misunderstood something. apologies you're right. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Should UFO still be categorized as Pseudoscience and fringe science?

Socks don't get to start threads -- Ponyobons mots 19:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I recently got a notification on my talkpage when I edited this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lonestar-physicist#Introduction_to_contentious_topics So is UFO considered Pseudoscience and fringe science? if so why is US government considers it a national security threat and scientifically analyzing it? this is from AARO website published today: https://www.aaro.mil/ "Our team of experts is leading the U.S. government’s efforts to address Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) using a rigorous scientific framework and a data-driven approach. Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has taken important steps to improve data collection, standardize reporting requirements, and mitigate the potential threats to safety and security posed by UAP." https://defensescoop.com/2023/08/30/hicks-takes-direct-oversight-of-pentagons-uap-office-new-reporting-website-to-be-launched/?utm_content=262515320&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-1450183022616121344 from the article: "When asked why she went all-in on prioritizing AARO as an element under her purview, particularly now, Hicks told DefenseScoop: “The department takes UAP seriously because UAP are a potential national security threat. They also pose safety risks, and potentially endanger our personnel, our equipment and bases, and the security of our operations. DOD is focusing through AARO to better understand UAP, and improve our capabilities to detect, collect, analyze and eventually resolve UAP to prevent strategic surprise and protect our forces, our operations, and our nation.” Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC) If UFO is same as vampires and warewolves, why does US gov has a entity within DOD for UAP called AARO? Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Yes, it should, as explained at Talk:Pseudoscience. Please don't make duplicate posts on multiple talk pages like this. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I discovered the second page later and posted there as well to get the most people engaged in this important conversation. I think the more opinions we have on this is better. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I invite editors to vote on this public poll: "Fiat determinatio per omnes populos" https://poll-maker.com/poll4919153x6D5d40Ef-152 Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC) agreed. I totally welcome everyone engaging in this discussion. Polling helps other editors who may be deterred by illogical stigma around this subject to participate as well. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You have fundamentally misunderstood Wikipedia's decision making process. You should read the links provided. MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC) ok how about you keep your opinions to yourself? instead you can contribute positively to thhis article instead of being nasty and making things personal. THank you sir/madam. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) I'll comment as I please, thanks. If you don't want people to point out that your arguments are completely out of touch with how Wikipedia makes decisions you should consider reading our policies, especially when they've just been linked for you. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Please stop disruptively editing. thanks. if you can't contribute to this article, find a better hobby. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You can always tell an argument is going well when the personal attacks come out. You're right, though, we've accomplished everything this thread is going to accomplish - you now know that per Wikipedia's policies, this article can and will continue to identify Ufology as a pseudoscience. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC) @User:Lonestar-physicist. You have been on Wikipedia one day. How Wikipedia's editorial policies apply to this topic has been patiently explained to you on multiple pages by a number of experienced editors. Saying This is all to improve the article and don't make it personal doesn't excuse an ongoing pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior. I seriously suggest you take some time to read the encyclopedia's editorial policies before continuing. This kind of ongoing WP:DISRUPTION isn't usually tolerated on article Talk pages for long. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) You're accusing me of exactly what MrOllie and yourself are doing. Please mind your own business. Thanks. Lonestar-physicist (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)