Talk:Societal effects of UFO belief

This is a thread to discuss the Neutrality template placed on this article by another editor. They appear not to have initiated a discussion themselves. Chetsford (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The whole framing of this article is non-neutral without sourcing on the concept.

Again, it is like if someone made an article on every mass shooter who was an atheist or something and wrote an article on "violence by atheists". Actually, Conservapedia has done something quite similar; - would their article be appropriate for Wikipedia? The sourcing for that might be better than this one actually but it would still be grossly inappropriate and non-neutral. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is currently the subject of a deletion discussion. If this is retained as keep, how will we reconcile the community's decision to keep the article with your assertion the template can't be removed due to the unrepairable, inherent unsuitability of the article for WP you allege? The neutrality template is a transient tag that remains only until the underlying problem is fixed. If the AfD closes as Keep you can't reasonably maintain that there is no possible fix short of a deletion that we decided against. Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sure, there could be a merge or a redirect somewhere else. And I wasn't the person who added the tag, anyway. If there is consensus that there is a problem with the content, the tag stays, this is a separate discussion from whether the page survives AfD. Plenty of pages that have survived AfD continue to be tagged with "notability", even. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

But your position seems to be the tag must remain since no changes are sufficient short of deletion. Which is irreconcilable with a consensus Keep (should that occur) since it infers the community's collective judgment is erroneous. Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No, it isn't irreconcilable. Mass killings under communist states has survived numerous neutrality-based AfDs, and the neutrality banner remains. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

In that case, those advancing the neutrality argument can point to actual, specific content in the article that, if corrected, they posit would remedy the defect. In this case, you're generally objecting to the mere existence of the article and asserting nothing can be done to remedy it. If the AfD closes as Keep (an uncertain possibility), one can't hold the position that the article can only be remedied by deletion. Chetsford (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This article is transparently polemic in nature; though it's been improved slightly from the initial state, it's still quite obvious what the slant is here.

Aum Shinrikyo being listed an example is particularly comical, like filing Charles Manson under "violence by Beatles fans". DiodotusNicator (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Using the word "violence" in this article's title might incorrectly characterize some of its content. It is also clearly disapproved by a subset of editors here, in part because it presents in Wikivoice a "value-laden label." I suggest that some new, alternative titles be presented and discussed here as possible replacements. Here are some to get the discussion started, with no expectation on my part that unanimity on these, or any others, can be achieved: "Injurious actions and threats by UFO believers"; "Criminal behaviors by UFO believers"; "Disruptive actions by UFO believers." Lastly, I respectfully request that, per WP:PA, the discussion here focus upon (potential) article content, and not on editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Are there sources that prove notability for such a topic? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I like all of these suggestions by JoJo Anthrax. Some other possibilities:

• Criminal deviance of UFO believers
• Criminal deviance associated with UFO belief
• Crime associated with UFO belief

Chetsford (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I note that @LuckyLouie: here suggested the alternative title "Dangers of UFO beliefs." That seems good, and has the advantage of not attaching any specific label (e.g., criminality, violence) to any specific individual. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Is "dangers" not subjective? How are we deciding what is and is not a danger? Sexual promiscuity/throwing orgies (as UFO religions are wont to do, for reasons that escape me) could be considered, and has been described as, dangerous to public morals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Some editors likely consider words/terms like "Serial killer," "Murder," "Kidnapping," and "Terrorism" to also be subjective, yet they are widely used in the titles of Wikipedia articles, articles that explicitly name living persons. With respect to this particular article and the proposed title word "Danger," I believe that sexual assault, bombing plots, suicide, murder, and physical assault are all activities that are accurately, and objectively, characterized as "danger/dangerous." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Serial killer, murder, and kidnapping all have specific, widely accepted definitions, and what elements that can be ambiguous are often settled by courts and only included then. Terrorism, not so much, but that is why we have MOS:TERRORISM ("best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution").

Danger is something that risks causing something harmful. What is or is not harmful is subjective; further, there is large variance in degrees of harm. Why not include any instance of someone spreading misinformation? Saying a falsehood? Tax fraud? Jaywalking? Speeding in your car? Texting while driving? Drinking while driving? Are these not dangerous to society? I'm sure plenty of UFO believers have done them. Why would an article on dangers only include physical criminal dangers? This isn't much more absurd than calling a self-sacrifice offer that was rejected an instance of violence (as used to be in the article). PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I will simply repeat what I wrote above, and respond no further here: With respect to this particular article and the proposed title word "Danger," I believe that sexual assault, bombing plots, suicide, murder, and physical assault are all activities that are accurately, and objectively, characterized as "danger/dangerous. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That's a great one, too. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It has the advantage of being used by citeable articles on the topic. , , .- LuckyLouie (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah, that definitely tilts it for me to "Dangers of ... [UFO belief / UFO believers / Ufology]". The only remaining question in my mind is what such a title would reflect (i.e. dangers of belief [to the believers], or, dangers of belief [to the public from the believers]). Based on the direction of coverage in the sources I think the predominant strain is the latter (danger to the public by believers in the UFO conspiracy theory) but I could also see the article encompassing both directions and it's probably within the demesne of editor discretion to define. Chetsford (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Since the topic (UFO beliefs engendering fears of aliens/conspiracies/demons etc.) is established as a notable topic by Tony Milligan, Tom Howard, Sara Scoles, that opens the door to expanding the article with sources like this and abandoning the "list article" format in favor of prose style, with examples of violence by believers as bullet points within a section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I wouldn't call Newsweek citable in the modern day, especially given they now use AI. See WP:NEWSWEEK PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The author Tom Howard is definitely not AI. But he does worry that Wikipedia has succumbed to AI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

So? Newsweek is not generally reliable post-2013. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The title at minimum really should show up in more than one WP:RS, and do something like "[negative descriptor] plus UFOs".

Without that any WP:SCOPE is WP:OR and this page will be removed, and WP:BLP/WP:IAR assure it will be gone against any number of opposing editors and regardless of their pleas or hopes, which can't have validity without that.

Find that to begin any possible valid title discussion, really.

There is no article without that as a beginning. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just a reminder that it is inappropriate to single out and name individual living persons as inciting, inflaming, or otherwise contributing on an article titled 'Violence by...'. Feoffer2 (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

...unless it is WP:DUE and reliably sourced. See, for example, this, this, this, this, this, and many more. See above discussion about developing a more appropriate title for the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Those people were convicted of crimes, those removed by Feoffer were not. And how would it be DUE? What sources do we have that determine that? DUE is determined by presence in sources about the subject. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

As I wrote above, WP:DUE is of prime importance. Certainly there are examples of reported activities by living people that are undue in any number of articles, including this one. Activities like sexual/physical assaults, murders, and bomb plots do not, however, strike me as minor aspects, especially when those activities are verified by reliable sources (which in this article they are) and for which underlying theories have been presented by reliable sources (which is the case in this article; e.g., the first two sources). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

DUE is determined by sourcing about the subject; there are no "underlying theories" for the content of this article. The listing here is indiscriminate with no clear inclusion criteria as determined by sourcing and undue. If I were to list every atheist who had committed such a crime, would that be a valid list? No, because it would be an indiscriminate listing of a grouping of things that no one else has ever collected. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

there are no "underlying theories" for the content of this article See this (entitled "UFO conspiracies can be more dangerous than you think") and this (key phrase: "Growth in UFO cults and cult-like behavior, violence and cyber-stalking by UFO zealots raise new concerns"). Both are cited in the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Violence is mentioned only in passing in both articles; not exactly underlying theories. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, but here is the discussion, immediately above, aimed at removing the word "violence" from the article. That change has not happened, and although the discussion remains active a reasonable interpretation of that discussion is that "violence" will indeed be removed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Above I failed to include this (key phrase: "AAE [alien abduction experiences] can induce symptoms of acute or chronic PTSD"), which is also cited in the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also, we cannot list people as committing a crime or having apparently committed a crime, unless they have been convicted of a crime, per WP:BLPCRIME. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

A person who (a) publicly and voluntarily admits to a crime, and is, (b) found guilty of that crime by a court, and is (c) referred to by dozens of RS as the unqualified perpetrator of the crime, is obviously not covered by WP:BLPCRIME's proscription against naming unconvicted persons, even if they are determined not criminally responsible due to mental infirmity. This is obvious and long-accepted across the encyclopedia, see: Andrea Yates, John Hinckley Jr., Ernest John Andrew Leyshon-Hughes, etc. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Those people are individually notable; unless they are found guilty per WP:BLPCRIME we do not include the name. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is probably different as it does carry the conclusion that the person did the act but is merely not guilty (this has actually been a grey area that has bothered me on murder articles for years; technically per the letter of BLPCRIME we would technically have to not say that Hinckley, for example, did it, but this is not how anyone, ever, has treated a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict onwiki or offwiki. In practice "not guilty by reason" of insanity is treated like a guilty verdict for BLPCRIME cases. I do not mind this but it would be nice if it was written somewhere!). But merely charges or arrests, of which several were included, those would be BLP violations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Then I guess I don't know what you're talking about with respect to this ("Also, we cannot list people as committing a crime or having apparently committed a crime, unless they have been convicted of a crime") unless it was just for general edification. (Which is appreciated, if that's the case.) Chetsford (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That was referring to the several people removed who had been merely charged or arrested without a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Based on a "The data from the Westlaw search [that]... resulted in 64 cases from 1977 to 2022" and NUFORC website reports, Bohlander argues "there is a conspicuous, although not an exact, correlation between the top ten state ranking of case numbers and the top ten ranking of sightings: Six of the top ten states regarding reported case law are also in the top ten of sightings." We cannot, however, conclude that such a correlation exists: Bohlander's sample is small (n=64), his correlation is never calculated or subjected to tests of statistical significance . No attempt is made to correct for population effects (California is most populous state, has most UFO reports, has most court cases, had 15 hits in Bohlander's Westlaw search). It would be great to have hard epidemiological data correlating local UFO reports to UFO-imagery in psychosis -- keep looking. But we don't have it here. Feoffer2 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Making independent calculations of margin of error or significance threshold is not WP:BASICMATH and is WP:OR. We can go ahead and restore this WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

To be more succinct: it was tagged by others as potentially irrelevant and a spot check of the source showed it failed to verify the claim that "Specific to the United States, there is a correlation between the frequency of criminal court matters in which UFO belief is part of the case and the frequency of purported UFO sightings." Feoffer2 (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That doesn't seem to be a conclusion the author makes. While they stop short of stating a significance threshold has been met, that's a different matter than the source makes no assertion. Chetsford (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I posit, and present for discussion, that:

(a) the scope of this article is obviously and clearly both UFO belief and belief in extraterrestrial visitors even if the believer doesn't think they are riding around in physical spaceships. That should be clear to a reasonable reader's understanding of the term UFO and UFO belief.
(b) that there is no standard for exclusion in this article on the basis of insanity and that an attempt to introduce one is an attempt at backdoor deletion. The article is obviously unsustainable if we determine that no content can be included unless the person who believed space aliens were sneaking around Earth and decided to kill someone over it was unafflicted by any psychological impairment.

Chetsford (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Unless the source says the crime was due to the UFO belief it does not go in this article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

(WP:COAL response) Only if the article was titled "Violence (or whatever that word is replaced with) by UFO belief." Which it is not. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sourcing is what determines article content; WP:LSC "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

1. Why?

2. WP:LSC "The criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. [...] As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." Sources about the topic in aggregate do not talk about every crazy person who has believed in UFOs as the UFOs are merely incidental to the event. It is like making a list of every individual murderer who happened to be Muslim, or Atheist, or any other trait, etc, when that has nothing to do with the case, and building an article from every individual case of that. Or would that be fine? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Per 5Q5's comment at AfD, a title change to something like Societal effects related to UFO belief would remove the unintended impression that the article is only focused on negative actions by individuals who happen to be UFO believers. Such a title would also help widen the scope to take in issues besides violence and mental health discussed by Scoles et al. And use of "related to" in the article title is similar to other articles like Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Why would we have a listing of random crimes (this article's main attraction) on an article about "social effects"? Would we not list all social effects, or incidents, or really any event related to UFOs, under that scope? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You would prefer that crimes be the focus because it's the main attraction...uh, okay. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I didn't say I'd prefer it, but when the article was made that was virtually its entire contents. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

(a) So why make this its own page instead of adding to UFO conspiracy theories?

(b) As VPP gestures toward in their reply, the issue here is that there is an obvious and major gulf between a nut who spends years constructing their own alien theories and then commits violence based on said theories, versus someone who commits suicide/homicide while incidentally believing UFO conspiracy theories. In the latter case, unless the source makes such an argument itself, presenting the UFO beliefs as causally connected or directly related to the violence rather than simply one delusion present in someone who likely has many others is WP:SYNTH.

This issue also makes the proposed "Dangers of UFO beliefs" even more dubious of a title: still many of the incidents listed are straightforwardly examples of the dangers of simply being insane, and not of any specific "belief" (which in many of these cases would be a euphemism for psychosis or paranoid delusions.) DiodotusNicator (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Mere psychotic breaks mentioning aliens are off-topic. It's INDISCRIMINANT to list them all, they have no enduring notability, and they pose BLP concerns. We cannot be intellectually lazy and just OR/SYNTH/assume all aliens come from UFO culture -- they don't. Capgras delusion is caused by neurological conditions, it far predates UFO theories, and readers don't need a list of every person to ever suffer from it. For example: last year, a a man in Brighton had a manic episode, urinated on a neighbor's car and called people pedophiles and aliens at a bus stop, before being sent to a doctor. No suggestion the man had UFO beliefs or subscribed to conspiracy theories -- he's just a person who had a medical crisis. Our readers do not need to know about him. An indiscriminate listing of such trivial events would be unreadable and would probably serve only to convince some vulnerable readers that there are 'Aliens Among Us'. Feoffer2 (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

(breaking with WP:COAL, I know) No suggestion the man had UFO beliefs or subscribed to conspiracy theories The title of the article you linked includes the phrase "UFO delusions," so the editors of that source are suggesting (at least) otherwise. As for determining if such events are "indiscriminate" or "trivial," that's what Talk page discussions can help decide, wherein WP:RS, WP:DUE, etc., can be applied. No reliable sources, no inclusion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

the article...includes the phrase "UFO delusions" Which is exactly why mere mention of UFO delusions doesn't merit inclusion. Even if readers wanted to us cover every manic episode where a guy screams aliens, BLP WILL NOT LET US.. 02:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Feoffer2 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Concur. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

"Mere psychotic breaks mentioning aliens are off-topic. " No, they're not. You can't have an article about "Violence by UFO believers" and only mention people devoid of any type of mental health issues. There would be nothing to include if that were the case. "We cannot be intellectually lazy and just OR/SYNTH/assume all aliens come from UFO culture" The name of the article is not "Violence connected to UFO culture". You're inventing new directions for the article whole cloth and then unilaterally applying them to excise content. Chetsford (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You can't have an article about "Violence by UFO believers" and only mention ... Well, you can't have an article titled "Violence by UFO believers", period, per ongoing deletion discussion. Wouldn't bigots love us to have articles like "Violence by Jewish people", "Violence by Muslims", etc where we OR/SYNTH our own hate literature from local news police blotters. Feoffer2 (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

With respect to drive-by tagging; the relevance template is an inline version of Template:Off topic. The OT template can be removed by any editor When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated as per WP:WTRMT. Chetsford (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

There's extensive on-going discussion about SCOPE, which is why the material was tagged rather than removed outright for insufficient sourcing. Restored tags. Just as a suspect's membership in a mosque doesn't automatically link a crime to Islam, we need a source linking crimes to beliefs/CTs. Current sourcing says both ODNF and Néo-Phare crimes were unrelated to UFOs, though I have no outside knowledge of either. Feoffer2 (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

In the list "Violence by UFO believers", what is within scope for inclusion?

Chetsford (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC); edited to add Option D per Anaxial (and, I think, Nabla)Reply

Do other articles that include "Violence by/of ... X topic or adherents" sort of articles characterize suicide as violence?

Beyond those - all of which may be wrong and out of policy compliance - what do WP:PAG and WP:MOS say (please include copy/paste quotes), which overrules everyone already or yet to comment on this page? Just want to make sure we're all keeping our head in our compulsory allowed maneuvering room and not any further. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ordinarily mere suicides should be off topic, but a handful have really good sourcing. With Jessup and Bennewitz cases, we have victims of UFO hoaxes that meet unfortunate ends because of said hoaxes. It's claimed McDonald killed himself because of his UFO research. The nice thing about these cases (and Maury Island) is we have consensus across worldviews linking the deaths to UFO belief -- that is to say, even UFO believers connect these four tragedies to UFO belief, as do mainstream historians. Feoffer2 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Per discussion here, seemed like the rename candidate that had the most support, so go at it. Or revert and discuss. 5Q5 had some good suggestions: Effects on society could include general mentions of the UFO convention and parade culture; memorial sites around the world; publishing, film & TV; social media and its use by both proponents and skeptics to discuss and debunk cases; the skeptical community's long involvement in the topic; and, salvaging policy-acceptable content from the existing article, a section on negative consequences of UFO/alien belief. First thing would be to pare down the Timeline section to the best and most agreed upon few examples, e.g. a few bullet points under a "Dangers" or "Violence" section, and weave in (per Feoffer) the death of Milton William Cooper, suicides of Morris Jessup and David Wilcock, the hospitalization of Paul Bennewitz for threatening his wife, etc. And of course fix the lead to track with the rename. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is an even more nebulous title, and the comparison to "societal effects of cars" is frankly absurd. There is plenty of serious scholarship on the societal effects of cars. How much is there on the "societal effects of UFO belief"? DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

From dictionary.com: "Societal: noting or pertaining to large social groups, or to their activities, customs, etc." The article has a scholarly sounding title, yes, but that doesn't mean published studies are needed as references. Here is a 2026 AP article that does have the word scholar in it: As UFOs go mainstream, the jury is out on what the existence of alien life might mean for religion . This 2026 Skeptic article mentions both scholars and societal: America’s Alien Problem: Why We Ignore Common Sense in Favor of Belief . This 2025 Nature article also mentions scholars and societal: Exploring expert figures in alien-related UFO conspiracy theories This 2024 paper in The Conversation calls belief in UFOs a "widespread societal problem": Belief in alien visits to Earth is spiralling out of control – here’s why that’s so dangerous Wikipedia coverage of UFO topics can be seen in the list at Template:UFOs. If no one revises the article from its present form and there is another AfD, I'll probebly !vote to delete. No one should wait for me to make changes. 5Q5 |^✉ 11:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I did a quick rewrite of the lead and the Timeline section. Hoping this will help attract positive contributions from someone User:Feoffer and keep the anti-Chetsford coalition at bay for the moment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply