Talk:Grey alien

Untitled

• Talk:Greys/Archive 1
• Talk:Grey Alien/Archive 2

From Little Green Men to Grays

Cast under silhoutte, the skin would appear to be black or dark grey to the senses or perhaps tan or brown. They are called "little green men" for their green eyes visible, if the West Virginia Mothman is noted for red eyes. Same phenomena by the visible outline of the figure besides the creature's said eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.48.25 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it a spoof?

I have a vague memory that the shape of 'grey' was actually created by Californian underground artists in about 1968 — as a spoof. Any comments? Harjasusi (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that idea, but all the sources I've read imply that it's derived from the alien in the movie about the Betty and Barney Hill case. Abyssal (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What about that demonic man named Aliester Crowley who drew a picture of a space Alien that he said he was in comunication with? This predates anything above. http://www.boudillion.com/lam/lam.htm

You mean the 'ascended master' or 'angel' which Crowley had his religious work dictated to him through the medium of his scarlet woman, it was named Aiwass. 66.96.79.221 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

dark colony

the gray aliens are one of 2 playable races in dark colony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Quatermas

Wasn't it the 1958 BBC serial "Quatermas and the Pit" which introduced to a much wider audience the idea of primitive humans removed from the Earth to be selectively bred to increase their intelligence?AT Kunene (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 'Quatermas and the Pit' were written by BBC television drama writer Nigel Kneale in 1952/53 and aired by the BBC first time during the summer of 1953. It was re-broadcast several times up to 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quatermass_Experiment

Greys are the Nephilim decendents

This info needs to be added to the article. They are the decendents of hybrid offspring of human's and angels who made bodies for themselves before the flood in an effort to lift man up from their fall in defience of God but these hybrids kept growing into giants called Nephilim and consumed the flesh of animals and men to feed their growing bodies. See book of Enoch. There was advanced technology before the Biblical flood and the angels returned to heaven as spirits but the Nephilim unable to do this spiritual transformation made space craft for themselves and went into space where the radiation from space weakened their DNA and so therefore their bodies appear as they do today instead of the close to God like beings of the Nephilim. They now appear mutated and demonic to radiation in space, eating the flesh of human children and alienation from God. They give the USA Government advanced technology and the USA Government keeps them secret and feeds their blood lust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.134.236 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? The Book of Enoch is not a reliable source, it needs to be something more modern and not a religious work.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like an opinion that the Book of Enoch is a "religious work" (only??). It's an assumption and opinion that a book containing religious concepts isn't a reliable source. What: only totally non-religious books or non-religious people are reliable?? It's a further assumption that modernity is so preferable regarding sources that ancient texts can't really count as sources. It's likely an opinion that the Book of Enoch isn't a "reliable" source. It's an assumption that skepticism is a better belief system than believ-ism. But I too would love to see sources for those statements about hybrid offspring. Misty MH (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Back in the 1990s Dan Rather of CBS reported on this and made this connection to the time before the flood and called the "Aliens" the product of the union between man and angel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.134.236 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC) This was on the CBS evening news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.134.236 (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are called soviets man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.13.42 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Grey aliens and the Nephilim are NOT the same entities. That is a ridiculous assumption (in my own opinion). Also, demons are NOT relevant to alien life; Why are they being listed, if they are irrelevant? User:ErednebE — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBenderednebE (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

bad picture

hey i think the cartoon picture of the grey diminishes the article by making it look unrealistic, so i we will have to find another one. moreover, i do not think greys are sexless because the have been reported to have a male or female feel when thet communicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Find us a photo and we'll see what we can do. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A trio

During the Medieval period it was Succubus and Incubus, now its the Greys. Whatever next?AT Kunene (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If we really wish to be subversive, we could call it the Dark Ages. What makes you think there weren't Incubi and Succubi? But to be fair: Grays are a term used because of their typical color. Succubus and Incubus are defined terms that someone used to hypothesize what these apparitions were. If we're going to be logical and parallel (and sound ever so wisely skeptical), we need to say "During the Dark ages, it was Succubi and Incubi; now it's "aliens". What's next??" Now, other than that skeptical "question", I am intrigued by the title "A trio". What is that in reference to? Or dare I ask? Misty MH (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

removing POV template without ongoing discussion per Template:POV instructions

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead image

It's terrible. The face is too square, the body too muscular and the belly... Well, he looks like he has been drinking too much galactic beer. It does not look like a "typical" Grey alien. 172.56.5.124 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this a real article?

I mean lately Wikipedia seems to be writing articles about topics that are so controversial and difficult to source or prove such as esoterical and metaphysical issues (other examples Ive seen are astrology signs and "Old souls" and aliens and whatnot)....

I mean how is this article about "aliens" which western humanity typically believes aren't real (im not saying i believe theyre fake, i just think its weird that this is actually an article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlhgeo1990 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Adlhgeo1990, if something is controversial then the more reason to have an article about it. If it is false, I'd say we'd have a even stronger reason, so that someone looking for information about the said controversial subject may find at least a half-decent article here, instead of (only) false claims out on the 'net. Providing, of course, we are not discussing our opinions, but are using sources. As to aliens, it sure is a common subject, and sure are plenty of serious literature about it. Okay, we certainly have silly, irrelevant, articles, agreed, and many are deleted daily. The point is not how false or true, hard or easy, provable or not, the subject is. The point is (in a short summary of my own): is there serious discussion of the subject that we can report? - Nabla (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that much has been happening on this article "lately" - just two edits this month. There was a lot more going on back when the Paranormal Wikiproject was active. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It's clearly the author's opinion and, although interesting doesn't really give any accepted sources or citations for what amounts to speculation. It really needs a great deal of tidying up, with the insertion of allegedly, claimed, etc. , in the appropriate places. 6Harry9 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Authentic?

Is this video authentic, or is it a fake created to raise some youtube money? Can it be used as an external link in the article? Logos (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Logos: Thanks for asking. This editor has three problems with that: 1) On first impression it looks like some form of hoax (my own uninformed opinion). (What form of hoax, I haven't a clue.)

But more importantly 2) If we add ELs to every YouTube ET/UFO video here that happens to show Greys (I'm not in principle against YouTube use for some purposes), we'll wind up with an article that is a sea of blue YouTube links, and that probably wouldn't do the article any good. This sort of thing has happened before on WP, with 13,000 active editors.

Finally 3) Videos specific to Greys really need to be in color, we can't see what color they really are in this (purported to be 1942) video.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the main problem with it is that it was uploaded by some random person so we can't be sure that it's not copyright infringement and that it is what it claims to be (in the video description, "KGB TOP SECRET UFO/ET FOOTAGE" etc). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2015

Remove Category:Goblins. Goblins are from an earlier age, pre-dating the emergence of the grey alien concept. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Done —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 07:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grey alien. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.theness.com/ufos-the-psychocultural-hypothesis/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Main image

So, I got redirected here from an article in a tabloid's webpage... And, despite being generally uninterested in conspiracy theories, even I can tell that the alien in that image is supposed to look gangly instead of having a potbelly. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Replaced it with a better one IMHO. RobP (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grey alien. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106170916/http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/210_autopsy2.shtml to http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/210_autopsy2.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Zeta Reticulian Alien.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

The formatting on this article is, well, bad. Why is the page image on the left and also above all the header boxes?

47.196.109.224 (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Apexian / Rigel connection

I've been reading information lately about where the Grays came from. It seems as though there's a number of different sources that say Grays were originally humans that got involved in some kind of nuclear war either on a planet called Apex or in the Rigel star system. Might be interesting to include this?

www.bibliotecapleyades.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.189 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Zeta Alien.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

An interesting article on the popular culture origins of grey aliens

Take a look at this guy's take: http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/gray/gray_history.htm

Some of his points are already covered in the article but I feel it's worth reading. Vandergay (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting hypothesis

Hi, I have found something intriguing.

Imagine for a moment that Flores Man did *not* in fact die out 12,600 years ago and some of these proto-humans made it off the island presumably on a raft. They were certainly capable based on fossil evidence of advanced technology comparable to Homo erectus and possibly up to Neanderthal level.

Some of them might have made it to a nearby island or other land mass and when the climate began to shift, moved underground. We know that this happened in the last Ice Age and even before. Over time they might have adapted to low light and oxygen becoming speciated and unable to return to the surface except for brief periods, adapting fully over the next 20,000 years with large eyes, grey skin devoid of pigmentation and developing advanced technology along the way. This could account for many anecdotal reports of "Little People" in historical text and other strange anomalies.

If they sent out an exploratory craft based on primitive rockets using liquid fuels then it could account for the reports in 1897, as well as later incidents. This might be speculative science fiction but its sufficiently interesting to justify some more research. (note, duplicate as seems to be relevant to Roswell and Aurora TX incidents) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Picture Book on The Evolution of People's Descriptions of Aliens

This would be an important addition to the article if we can find the book. Around 1985-90, I discovered a book (via an article I read about it, I think) primarily containing drawings based on people's descriptions of aliens they claimed to have seen. The descriptions were shown in order of the year they were "seen" and showed that in the early days, pre-1950, there was a wide variety of types of aliens, but over time, as alien sightings became more widely shared in the media, the descriptions gradually averaged closer and closer to the "grays," to the point that they were what most people claimed to have seen. I'm still Googling this every so often, but if more people searched I bet we could find it quickly. Thanks! :-) Genepoz (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Direct plagiarism

The History section of this article has been directly plagiarised from...

Beginning from page 56 on...

116.240.144.209 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

After a cursory investigation, it appears quite clearly that Iman Ital plagiarized the Wikipedia article instead. Sentences that were added over the course of several months (and later removed) in the article appear wholesale in the book (example on WT:CP. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you MLauba. It seems the CHILAM BALAM book was published in 2015 (looking at Lulu.com), while the Wikipedia section was being updated before that time, so it is Ital who is the plagiarist. Apologies for not delving deeper to get to an original (dated) source. A lesson I should have learned by now, but it does trip me up every so often when I forget to take that one extra research step - to locate the original source! 116.240.144.209 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Quotes: H. G. Wells describing “grey aliens”

In the interests of complete accuracy, the History section of this article should contain Wells’ direct alien descriptive quotes for ease of reference. This is so people can immediately see for themselves how the attribution of “grey alien” to Wells’ descriptive writings (as posited by this section) might apply. After all, we must allow Wells’ writings speak for themselves in order to prevent any potential error in attribution.

(Apologies, I do not yet possess the technical knowledge to appropriately insert Wells’ descriptive quotes into the main article. Is it possible an editor with more knowledge than I do that? Thank you)

In Wells’ The Man of the Year Million (1894), speculating on what evolution might do to humankind over the course of one million years, Wells describes future humans as,

“The coming man, then, will clearly have a larger brain and a slighter body than the present. (…) The human hand (…) will become constantly more powerful and subtle as the rest of the musculature dwindles. (…) Eyes large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful ; above them, no longer separated by rugged brow ridges, is the top of the head, a glistening, hairless dome, terete and beautiful ; no craggy nose rises to disturb by its unmeaning shadows the symmetry of that calm face, no vestigial ears project ; the mouth is a small, perfectly round aperture, toothless and gumless, jawless, unanimal, no futile emotions disturbing its roundness as it lies, like the harvest moon or the evening star, in the wide firmament of face. (…) There grows upon the impatient imagination a building, a dome of crystal, across the translucent surface of which flushes of the most glorious and pure prismatic colors pass and fade and change. In the centre of this transparent chameleon-tinted dome is a circular white marble basin filled with some clear, mobile, amber liquid, and in this plunge and float strange beings. Are they birds ? They are the descendants of man — at dinner. Watch them as they hop on their hands — a method of progression advocated already by Bjornsen — about the pure white marble floor. Great hands they have, enormous brains, soft, liquid, soulful eyes. Their whole muscular system, their legs, their abdomens are shrivelled to nothing, a dangling, degraded pendant to their minds."

In Wells’ The First Men in the Moon (1901), Wells describes the native Selenites variously as,

“Clumsy quadruped with lowered head”, “slender pinched body and short and extremely attenuated bandy legs”, “head depressed between his shoulders”, “somewhat hunchbacked, with a high forehead and long features”, “walked like a bird”, “no nose”, “dull bulging eyes at the side—in the silhouette I had supposed they were ears”, “no ears”, “mouth, downwardly curved, like a human mouth in a face that stares ferociously”, “The neck on which the head was poised was jointed in three places, almost like the short joints in the leg of a crab”, “The joints of the limbs I could not see, because of the puttee-like straps in which they were swathed” (pp. 136-7), “soft tentacle-hand” “The skin, like everything else, looked bluish, but that was on account of the light; and it was hard and shiny, quite in the beetle-wing fashion, not soft, or moist, or hairy, as a vertebrated animal’s would be”, “Along the crest of the head was a low ridge of whitish spines running from back to front, and a much larger ridge curved on either side over the eyes” (pp. 152-3), “Selenite came and patted each of our faces with his tentacles”, “spiked round helmets and cylindrical body-cases” (p. 155)

In Wells’ War of the Worlds (1898), Wells describes how the invading Martians bring with them another species of Martian, the blood of which they use for food via intravenous injection (the Martians come to earth seeking animal blood, the delicacy for them being human blood). This other species of Martian is described by Wells as,

“bipeds with flimsy, silicious skeletons (almost like those of the silicious sponges) and feeble musculature, standing about six feet high and having round, erect heads, and large eyes in flinty sockets.” (Sec. II)

116.240.144.209 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A massive wall of text from Welles books would not improve understanding of the concept. The existing summary is quite adequate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply LuckyLouie. The contention of the article is that the history of grey aliens can be traced back to H. G. Wells and 1894. However, to claim that the aliens described by H. G. Wells can be in any way construed as a progenitors or otherwise prototypical of the icon modern grey alien is to fall victim to confirmation bias - cherry picking the evidence for salient features while ignoring those that don’t fit – in other words, falling victim to Pareidolia. I was merely quoting Wells to demonstrate that one could as easily describe a normal human head as a prototypical grey in that way (which would be far more accurate by the way, but still fallacious). The bottom line is, seeing prototypical grey aliens in the writings of H. G. Wells is like claiming an elephant is a table because each has four legs. It’s a nonsense. 116.240.144.209 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

ETA: And don't you find it passing strange that in Wells’ The Man of the Year Million (1894), he is describing humans, not aliens, who walk on their hands, and otherwise have no legs or torso at all? That future human cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be a "grey alien" of any description. So why is it included as a reference? Does Wikipedia make a habit of promulgating falsehoods in this way? And if for this article, then that immediately begs the question - if this article, then for what other articles do these lax and fallacious standards apply? 116.240.144.209 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Read the footnotes in the section you are questioning. Wikipedia goes by what secondary sources say about a topic, rather than have editors analyze and interpret primary sources. More detail at the links I provided on your Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/2).- LuckyLouie (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Haha. Indeed yes, I had noticed that ... "This work is based on the author's experience of a five-day UFO conference...",. Come on, please, The author's experience? You're having a laugh surely. Are you seriously telling me that Wikipedia's standard is people's "experience" of something? I mean, that goes against everything we are taught about citing independent sources. In my own personal experience the whole of the grey alien article is absolute unattributed nonsense - but that's my experience and I am sure you would not want me just overwriting the article with my own personal experience. The article is unsourced - from the very first line we have "Grey aliens, also referred to as Zeta Reticulans, Roswell Greys,..." Who refers to them in such terms? What is the source for this information? Has Wikipedia just made that up from thin air? If you cannot cite sources for the information you provide, then we, the public, are entitled to dismiss such claims as entirely unfounded (false and misleading, utter nonsense in other words). I have already demonstrated that citing H. G. Wells' aliens as a grey alien progenitors is nonsensical. So the question remains unanswered - if for this article, what other articles does Wikipedia treat in such cavalier fashion? What is the worth of Wikipedia if it allows false and misleading information to stand as truth? 116.240.144.209 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Those terms were made up by people with vivid fantasies. Other people, gullible people, believe them. It's all bullshit, but loads of people exist who believe in it. Scientists and journalists who are interested in the generation and proliferation of crazy beliefs write down what they learn about it, for example when they visit UFO conferences. Wikipedia quotes them, so the reader can find out what the loon with the tinfoil hat she met in the mall meant by "grey alien".

Yes, what Wells wrote has only a superficial similarity to what today's UFO nut believes. Nevertheless, his description may have influenced it. That is what the article says: "The precise origin of the Grey as the stereotypical extraterrestrial being is difficult to pinpoint." --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hob Gadling for your contribution. Perhaps you misunderstand what I am talking about. An example of false information contained within the article is as follows.

Wells did not describe the Selenites (natives of the Moon) “as having grey skin, big heads, and large black eyes.”

Wells himself described them variously as: “Clumsy quadruped with lowered head”, “slender pinched body and short and extremely attenuated bandy legs”, “head depressed between his shoulders”, “somewhat hunchbacked, with a high forehead and long features”, “walked like a bird”, “no nose”, “dull bulging eyes at the side—in the silhouette I had supposed they were ears”, “no ears”, “mouth, downwardly curved, like a human mouth in a face that stares ferociously”, “The neck on which the head was poised was jointed in three places, almost like the short joints in the leg of a crab”, “The joints of the limbs I could not see, because of the puttee-like straps in which they were swathed” (pp. 136-7), “soft tentacle-hand” “The skin, like everything else, looked bluish, but that was on account of the light; and it was hard and shiny, quite in the beetle-wing fashion, not soft, or moist, or hairy, as a vertebrated animal’s would be”, “Along the crest of the head was a low ridge of whitish spines running from back to front, and a much larger ridge curved on either side over the eyes” (pp. 152-3), “Selenite came and patted each of our faces with his tentacles”, “spiked round helmets and cylindrical body-cases” (p. 155)

Sorry, but I have already shown you that. The article itself is replete with such falsehoods… And surely Wikipedia is not about point scoring (!), that's political, certainly not scientific - and it brings into disrepute the whole Wikipedia enterprise. False information is false information. I don't care who or what you are, you should not publish false information if you want to maintain any credibility - particularly if it is just to make a point (!) - that in itself is a staggering admission to make. I am now beginning to understand the problem with Wikipedia... a wilful ignorance of evidence in favour of personal "experience" cited for the purpose of "point" scoring. Festinger had much to say about that, Cognitive Dissonance being the psychological process underlying it... 116.240.144.209 (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

My contribution was a response to your contribution directly above my contribution. I signified that by using a colon. Maybe you should learn how to use those colons too, instead of starting a new thread every time. It could make you more aware of the structure of Wikipedia discussions and prevent misunderstandings.

Next, you could stop ranting about perceived wrongs you want to right, and generally stop talking so much. Instead, concentrate on what you actually want to say.

If you just say what you want to change, and if you give a good reason, it will get changed. Those requests that get rejected, in my experience, are either worded incomprehensively, violate the rules, or are poorly reasoned.

So, you want to remove the sentence "In his 1901 book The First Men in the Moon, Wells described Selenites (natives of the Moon) as having grey skin, big heads, and large black eyes", which is sourced to "Michael M. Levy; Farah Mendlesohn (22 March 2019). Aliens in Popular Culture". But the reason you give is bad. We rely on secondary sources, not primary ones such as Wells himself. We do not want random people on the internet doing research and writing the results into articles.

There is a link to this book, and I searched for "Selenites" there. No hits. Therefore, the sentence is unsourced and can be deleted. I will do that now.

You see, there is no point in pointing to Wells. You need to look at the actual sources used in the article. If Levy and Mendlesohn had written that Wells described the Selenites like that, we would have a conundrum on our hands: maybe there were different editions of the book, and you had one and Levy and Mendlesohn had another? It does not matter, since that did not happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I understand. It seems a crazy way to write articles, by ignoring the original sources, but I will take your sound advice to cease gratuitous commenting forthwith and concentrate on the article.

Let's take that first line of the article then: "Grey aliens, also referred to as Zeta Reticulans, Roswell Greys,...". It is not sourced. Therefore it requires sourcing, or removal.

Is that the type of request you are talking about?116.240.144.209 (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but the lead is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. It does not need to be sourced per MOS:CITELEAD. The "Zeta Reticulans" thing is sourced in the "In popular culture" section below, so that is OK. "Grays" is just a regional variation - for some reason, the British spelling seems to have become the main one - and does not need sourcing per WP:SKYISBLUE. But "Roswell Greys" are not mentioned in the article. Roswell, yes. So, there are several options: Delete it, ignore it (since it is probably true that someone called them that, given the Roswell connection, and there are more urgent things to change) or find a source. Deleting is the simplest, especially in a WP:FRINGE article like this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the crazy way to write articles: This is because we are nobodies. We are random people on the internet who cannot be trusted to work meticulously. Well, not all of us. So, if it were allowed to write articles based on primary sources, some people would do their own bad research and write things you cannot find elsewhere. Encyclopedias are supposed to be tertiary sources, based on established knowledge. Which means using secondary sources.

Another thing: Sometimes it is useful to look at older versions of the article to find out how the wording came to be. Sometimes something gets added to the article, with source, and to the lead, without a source, and then it is deleted in the article without also deleting the text in the lead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time in explanation Hob, that is much appreciated. Now I get the principle. And you are correct, there are more important issues with this article than that. There is just one thing I am a little unsure of. A matter of logic.

You tell me I cannot refer to the original source but instead must go through the cited secondary source. Okay, but what if that secondary source claims something that the original source did not write? For example (getting back to the History section and H. G. Wells), citing Haight (1958) Wikipedia states:

“In the 1893 article "Man of the Year Million", science fiction author H. G. Wells envisioned the possibility of humanity transformed into a race of grey-skinned beings who were perhaps one meter tall, with big heads and large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes.”

Yet in "Man of the Year Million" (1893) Wells never described future man as “grey-skinned”, nor did he indicate their height. Moreover, Wells says of the eyes “Eyes large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful” That’s it – Wells’ description of future man’s eyes in toto. That cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, construed as Haight’s “oval-shaped pitch-black eyes".

But how am I expected to demonstrate Haight’s false claims, if I cannot refer to Wells?116.240.144.209 (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

References

There are two possibilities. Either you are right and the secondary source is wrong, or you are wrong and the secondary source is right - maybe the description given by the secondary source is somewhere else in the book, or it was somewhere else in the book and has been cut out in subsequent editions, for example in the one you have.

I can see several options:

1. Ignore the rules, try to strong-arm the version true to the primary source into the article. You will get reverted because of the rules, and if you are persistent enough, you will get blocked, or the article will get blocked. This is the most popular option, I think, and I can obviously not recommend it.
2. Sigh, ignore the problem and keep the version you think is wrong.
3. Find another secondary source which has the correct description, then replace it.
4. Try to convince other users that the secondary source is not reliable. This will be difficult with Gordon S. Haight, a professor of English who should know how to quote correctly.
5. Locate the Haight source and find out that Haight has been misquoted by the Wikipedia article.
6. Check the history of the article [1] and find out who introduced the source. That is what I would do.
   1. It could be that the quote was introduced by a notoriously untrustworthy user who has been blocked since and is probably not in the source. Point that out and remove this as well as other stuff introduced by that user.
   2. Otherwise, ask that user how that can be.

I already did a bit of searching. The Haight source was introduced in July 2019 in this edit by User:Jwarlock, but the description was already there! Going back, the description itself was introduced in August 2016 [2] by an IP, replacing the old "grey-skinned beings, stunted and with big heads" description.

If that is better, that IP was talking through its hat and we should revert all the IP's edits. The question remains why Jwarlock thought that this quote was in the Haight source. That is why I am using option 6.2, summoning that user here by pinging. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hob, you are a good mentor to me, haha, you provide me with what I need to know (sometimes despite myself). But between you, me and the gatepost, we know the statement in Wikipedia is false. Wells’ article in the Tuapeka Times is Wells’ own, in full, original text (other websites carry it too ) So you are right, either Haight is in error or Wikipedia has quoted him incorrectly, either way, the statement in Wikipedia is demonstrably false, so what can be done to get it removed?

Graciously you outline some of the options.

1. Ignore rules, force change, get banned, no thanks.
2. Sigh (roll my eyes) and forget about it. In which case Wikipedia remains on my list of banned sources (not out of petulance, nothing personal, just realism) and the world is a poorer place for it.
3. Find a secondary source with the correct description? Certainly, they’re kinda everywhere… here fore example: Story, R. (Ed.) (2002) The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters. Again those “Eyes large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful” (and no grey skin nor height in sight). Wells’ article is in fact short (just 3 pages) and his alien descriptions are consequently succinct enough that reliable secondary sources simply quote the man himself (cf. eyes). What I cannot do however, is replace an existing false statement with any other secondary source. That is because Wells describes creatures that in no way resemble grey aliens. The whole premise is in error. That’s just the simple fact of the matter. The only thing I can do is request the removal of a demonstrably false statement.
4. Show the secondary source (Haight) to be unreliable… Before we even start on what he may or may not have said, Haight is an unreliable source. For starters, he is an English graduate, neither a scientist nor a ufologist. It would be like asking my dentist to deal with my heart surgery because he once read a book about heart surgery… the scientific method must be formally taught, it cannot be learned by personal experience. Even formally trained scientists misunderstand the scientific method to an alarming degree… so yes, Haight is inherently an unreliable source for ufological information. If you want ufological information, you need to consult a ufologist…

However, convincing the Writers of the Page that Haight is unreliable might be difficult. I mean, if the page editors won’t accept the word of the man himself (Wells) as the final arbiter, rather to maintain a position behind technicalities – then I am sure that could be done until well after the cows have come home…

But I have faith yet in this process Hob, you have proved yourself so far to be an honest broker, and I get the impression you are slightly intrigued… (maybe questioning if I may not be right about …well, pretty much the whole page? Hmmm…. haha). Pressing on…

5. Locate the Haight source… yeah, I can’t find a searchable copy online. Find a library near me and go read it… student 101. Unfortunately, I’m not a student and I have not been provided the semester booklist – otherwise I would have the book beside me as I type. Haha. Time for this option, I don’t really have (I wish I did now)…

6. Yes, your implication is spot on - it is important that the burden of proof not be illegitimately reversed here. The ownus rightly rests on the claimant (Wikipedia or its editors) to support their claim with logic or evidence. It will be interesting to find out what Jwarlock has to say.

But on that - how long is a person given to respond before the inevitable is bowed to and a demonstrably false statement is removed? Ultimately, what can Jwarlock add to the conversation (in defence of the indefensible)? After all, it is a false statement… Let's hope Jwarlock gets back soon.116.240.144.209 (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

References

A ufologist is not someone with special expertise, just someone whose hobby (or job) is to not identify flying objects. So, no, Haight not being one is actually a plus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay...what is the process here? How long does Wikipedia allow false claims to stand? Who do I need to talk to to get a resolution here?116.240.144.209 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no deadline. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Formalising my edit request under a registered username

Apologies for a new section. I have been commenting under my IP address but have decided to register a username. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to merge the two, so I need to register this request under my registered username so that the discussion may continue using that name. Sorry for the inconvenience.

My request is as follows:

To remove the second sentence of the History section in this article because it attributes to H. G. Wells things that H. G. Wells never said. That is:

Citing Haight (1958) Wikipedia states: “In the 1893 article "Man of the Year Million", science fiction author H. G. Wells envisioned the possibility of humanity transformed into a race of grey-skinned beings who were perhaps one meter tall, with big heads and large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes.”

However, in Wells’ short essay "Man of the Year Million" (1893) H. G. Wells nowhere described future man as “grey-skinned”, nor did Wells discuss future man’s height. Moreover, Wells describes future man’s eyes as “large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful”. In the whole of Well’s short essay (aprox. 2245 words), that is the only time Wells mentions the eyes. Unfortunately, that description of future man’s eyes cannot in be reconciled with Wikipedia’s “oval-shaped pitch-black eyes".

Wikipedia’s sentence makes false attributions to a well know and respected author and therefore the offending sentence needs to be removed. Well’s future man in no way resembles a grey alien, being essentially a head standing on arms with vestigial dangly bits between that used to be a body and legs.

I propose the replacement text should then be (amalgamating the remaining first and last sentence) something like:

“The precise origin of the Grey as the stereotypical extraterrestrial being is difficult to pinpoint. In his 1898 novel “The War of the Worlds”, H. G. Wells briefly describes a second Martian species, resembling Greys, that were brought from Mars by the invading Martians as a food source.”

Thank you.

PS: I note that there has been very little attention given to this page over time. I will therefore wait a day or so to gauge any potential interest - and if there is none, I propose to edit the changes myself.

Thank you to LuckyLouie and Hob Gradling for their gracious comments and helpful suggestions in my previous incarnation as an IP address. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

This change looks good to me. Sorry you were not able to access the source in Sci-Hub (I simply typed the DOI number into the search box and there it was). So go ahead and make this change. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Another false attribution to secondary source: Removal request.

In the first paragraph of the History section, Wikipedia attributes the final sentence:

“Wells briefly describes aliens resembling Greys brought down to Earth as food for the Martians, who were the antagonist characters in his 1898 novel The War of the Worlds.”) to

“Michael M. Levy; Farah Mendlesohn (22 March 2019). Aliens in Popular Culture. ABC-CLIO. pp. 135–. ISBN 978-1-4408-3833-0.”

Yet on page 135 Levy and Mendlesohn (2019) nowhere state that Wells says any such thing - nor do they say it elsewhere in the book. Wikipedia’s attribution is false. Levy & Mendlesohn attributed to Wells no such thing.

I can upload screenshots of pages 135, 136 & 137 (the book section on Grey aliens)if you wish verification – Handy, when Wikipedia’s Levy reference actually takes one to a Google “no preview available page”.

Given the already noted falsehoods (my previous request above) and recent sentence removal in this paragraph, the conclusion that the whole paragraph is bogus is inescapable.

I therefore make an appeal to whoever is editing or looking after this page to respond with advice on how best to proceed. Should I make a wider appeal to external editors? I am new here and I am really unsure of the protocols and be assured, I wish to work within them. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I posted a notice on WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hob, appreciate it.Tesldact Smih (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ETA: Haha - and I am not going to argue the toss with you about what a ufologist is or is not - my criteria is essentially qualified scientist (preferably peer review published in a reputable journal) or bust. ...and no deadline...well, it probably matters not, somehow I doubt we'll hear from Jwarlock anyway... Oh. tiny qualification, it's the content that counts in the end...Tesldact Smih (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

More false attributions

Wikipedia, attributes the following statement to Levy & Mendlesohn (2019)

“In 1933, the Swedish novelist Gustav Sandgren, using the pen name Gabriel Linde, published a science fiction novel called Den okända faran ("The Unknown Danger"), in which he describes a race of extraterrestrials who wore clothes made of soft grey fabric and were short, with big bald heads, and large, dark, gleaming eyes. The novel, aimed at young readers, included illustrations of the imagined aliens.”

This is what Levy and Mendlesohn actually had to say about the matter:

"Gustav Sandgren, writing as Gabriel Linde, further refined the literary predescessors of grays in his 1933 novel Den okända faran. (The Unknown Danger) Sandgren’s aliens solidify the appearance of grays, as his description is the template upon which the popular conception of these beings rest."(p.135)

That is the sum total of Levy and Mendlesohn’s contribution vis. Linde/Sandgren. (I have access to the relevant pages online and have the screenshots if you require verification)

To put it bluntly, Wikipedia has again falsely attributed it’s statement. It therefore it requires a correct attribution or removal. I am beginning to suspect that if I keep going through Wikipedia’s Grey Alien page, it will continue to be bogus. Tesldact Smih (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Citation or removal required.

Wkipedia states:

“In 1965, newspaper reports of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction made the archetype famous.”

That claim requires a source citation or removal. I suggest removal because in light of all the bogus material that has preceded this unfounded claim (see above), one suspects this claim may also be bogus. Tesldact Smih (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems with the next sentence

Wikipedia states:

“The alleged abductees, Betty and Barney Hill, claimed that in 1961, alien beings had abducted them and taken them to a flying saucer.”

First, either “The alleged abductees” or “had abducted them and” is redundant. A better construction might be:

“Betty and Barney Hill claimed that in 1961 alien beings had abducted them and taken them to a flying saucer.”

That construction almost avoids the grammatical mistakes that the addition of “The alleged abductees” causes - but not entirely, so an even better construction might be:

“New Hampshire couple, Betty and Barney Hill, alleged that on the night of September 19-20, 1961, alien beings abducted them and took them aboard their landed craft.”

That construction then avoids all grammatical problems and also avoids the unattributed source problem for “flying saucers’ - as it provides a reliable source and does not make (potentially) false attributions to the Hills – and critically it does not change the meaning of the original sentence in any way, in fact it adds critical information. ETA: ...Oh, and the source, Webb (1965), is one already used on Wikipedia's Betty and Barney Hill page.

If there is no further interest, I will also edit the proposed improvement into the article (at the moment it remains a suggestion for improvement - the alternative to amendment of course being complete removal as unsourced). Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Another false claim

Wikipedia states:

“Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map" which she claimed located the home planet of her abductors in the Zeta Reticuli star system (allegedly the third planet of one of the stars of the Zeta Reticuli binary system).”

Now I happen to know that Betty Hill claimed no such thing. However, proving a negative is virtually impossible – the best one can do is show it to be unlikely.

First, Betty Hill did not produce her “star map” under hypnosis. She drew it sometime after the Saturday, March 21st, 1962 session. Her exact comments on the matter during the hypnosis session were:

“DOCTOR: You want to try to draw the map? BETTY: I'm not good at drawing. I can't draw perspective. DOCTOR: Well, if you remember some of this after you leave me, why don't you draw it, try to draw the map. Don't do it if you feel concern or anxious about it. But if you do, bring it in next time, all right? BETTY: I'll try to. DOCTOR: But don't feel as if you're compelled to do it. (Sometimes a post-hypnotic suggestion can he very distressing. The doctor is guarding against this by leaving it up to Betty's volition.) BETTY: Okay.”

Thus, Wikipedia’s “Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map" is clearly a false statement and needs to be removed or modified to reflect the fact that Betty actually drew the map in normal, waking memory.

There are some other factual problems with Wikipedia’s sentence here, and I will continue to add to this section as I catch up on the research. Thank you.

ETA: Before I continue, I need people to bear in mind the following with an eye to dates and time-frames (sadly, Barney passed away in 1969). According to Wikipedia’s Betty and Barney Hill page:

“In 1968 Marjorie Fish (…) read Fuller's book, "Interrupted Journey." (…) Intrigued by the "star map," Fish wondered if it might be "deciphered" to determine which star system the UFO came from. (…) Fish constructed a three-dimensional model (…) using thread and beads, basing stellar distances on those published in the 1969 Gliese Star Catalogue. Studying thousands of vantage points over several years, the only one that seemed to match the Hill map was from the viewpoint of the double star system of Zeta Reticuli.”

(TBC) Tesldact Smih (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)