Talk:List of alleged extraterrestrial beings

Alleged extraterrestrials?

I have a couple of questions about this page. At the moment, it seems to document only cryptids associated solely (or mainly) with outer space. So, should this page also include creatures not originally attributed to alien activity that have since been alleged of alien origins (such as shadow people, fairies, chupacabras and Spring-Heeled Jack)? Also, what about various the real humans who have been accused of being aliens by conspiracy theorists? Should they get a mention? RobbieG 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it maybe best to stick just with alleged extraterrestrials, and not go into creatures that are not originally attributed to alien activity (start a separate article for them)... not a good idea to add humans who have been accused of being aliens (start a separate article for them) ... just stick with alleged extraterrestrials within alien activity (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• leave out Cryptid creatures that are not extraterrestrial and not attributed to alien activity (create a separate article for them if one does not exist) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What about cryptid creatures that some people believe to be extraterrestrial and some people attribute to alien activity, whilst some people believe in them but don't think they're aliens? El Chupacabra would be a prime example. RobbieG 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• if their Grouping in the Paranormalcreatures infobox says extraterrestrial because some people believe they are attributed to alien activity, add them in (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 18:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Chupacabras, the infobox doesn't say anything of the sort, but the article itself does. RobbieG 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Add extraterrestrial to the Grouping and add that creature to the list (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• spring heeled jack is a human, not a ufo-related entity (:OP (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• moth man not a UFO-related entity, and Men in black is moved to List of government responses to UFOs (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think this might be a bit narrow? Also, whatever Mothman is, he's not human, and Spring Heeled Jack has been alleged to be an extraterrestrial, as his article states. If this list is for solely UFO related entities, we can remove the Dover Demon and the Rods too (although I suppose one could argue that the rods themselves are UFOs). RobbieG 20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• stick with solely UFO related entities, create a separate list article for these other creatures (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Other aliens

• Andromedans
• Borg aliens

Source is MAAR. Will place this.65.173.105.131 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

IF you have seen Star Trek:TNG and Star Trek: Voyager, that wil give you an idea what a Borg alien looks like.65.173.105.131 (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andromedans: Battlefield Earth

I have a list of websites, dozens of them and it is all the same: The claim is that the Andromedan aliens have "told all other aliens to LEAVE Earth and the Sol solar system voluntarily or involuntarily. Either way, they're leaving. The reptile aliens and their allies are'nt leaving, so there will be WAR here when these aliens arrive. The battle would be a cross between the Biblical Book Of Revealations and Return of the Jedi, meaning that not only would Earth be "invaded", it'll be a battleground, with Humanity caught in the middle of it, with nowhere to run. There is references to this battle on the Andromedan talk page. Google SEARCH: Alien Races/ Alien Species for more. Done that myself.65.173.105.131 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this related to the novel, Battlefield Earth, or some other work of fiction? --Jenny 06:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it's meant to be in real life. The "Battlefield Earth" part of the section header seems to be there probably just because it seemed to fit with the topic. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of people around who have the ability to maintain a website but are unable to tell the difference between reality and what they see on the television. However, if we can get decent sources (that Washington Post story about Eisenhower is what I consider a pretty good source) then I think they can go in). --Jenny 07:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Better sources

I've removed some sourcing that struck me as worse than useless--crank websites, about.com and some kind of talk radio show. I haven't removed the entries themselves, but I think I'd like to see some sourcing for those comparable to what we have for the others: mainstream newspaper and magazine articles, published books, and so on. Anybody can make a story up and put it on a website or tell Jeff Rense about it. I think we should look for better sourcing than that. --Jenny 07:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with About.com? Are they less of an expert on UFO related entities than the New York Times and USA Today? I think someone should look into the removal of references to make sure they were in fact "wose than useless". I hope you aren't a government agent trying to crush open discussion of possible alien activity. Or are you yourself working with these alien entities? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mothman.jpg

The image Image:Mothman.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Report

This is a very interesting list, however it is rediculous and flawed. I could find out more from my homeworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratstail91 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

While I appreciate other editors being bold, I don't think that changing this article to a redirect needs to happen without serious discussion. It has just gotten off a contentious AFD. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this redirect is inappropriate, let them make their opinions known here. If no objects are made in the next 96 hours, I will reinstate the redirect. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, thats not quite the way it usually works. We can play it that way, but I would instead suggest we have a normal discussion about it. You have already tried to delete the article, which ended as a no consensus at AFD. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you didn't put artificial deadlines that are not supported by policy. That would make it a lot easier for others, including myself, to remain open minded. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The deadline is not artificial. It is very real, I assure you. WP:POLICY is irrelevant, except for, perhaps, WP:IAR. If you have a reason not to redirect this article that is substantive, I suggest you offer it. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have checked back at the AfD, and though it was closed as non-consensus, there was similarly no consensus to redirect. considering the recency of that discussion, I think it rules out a redirect at this time. Regardless of whether one has a time limit on such things, the objections have been made, and firmly so. I suggest instead a tightening of the language and format. DGG (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatuous argument. Give a reason or stop wikilawyering. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure why ScienceApologist appears to be taking a confrontational tone on my talk page and here. I have been open minded as to any explanation as to why we should but I have not seen a reason stated for turning this article into a redirect. I have only seen a demand to provide a justification to maintain the status quo. This falls under proving a negative, it appears, and I think he has it a bit backwards. If you would like to provide a reason why you feel it should be a redirect, I would be happy to consider it, and so would others. Insisting that an article be justified (even if it hadn't already been to AFD) or it be redirected in a certain time limit, while you provide no rationale for the redirect, makes no sense and yes, isn't supported by policy, including WP:IAR as it hasn't been shown or explained how this improves Wikipedia, which is the only justification to invoke IAR, per IAR. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No content-based justification for keeping this article as something other than a redirect. Explain why we should keep any of this content at this location and we'll consider the argument on its merits. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I noted SA's redirection with interest. As DGG says, there was no consensus to either delete or redirect at the AfD. However, the article came under great criticism during the process, and by the closing admin, who suggested that those in favour of retaining the article, should make the necessary improvements to it. There were several in the AfD debate who argued passionately that the article was worthwhile and salvageable, yet not one of them lifted a finger to fix it, then or since. It had been my intention to see what happened for a couple of months, and if nothing substantial took place, to nominate again, as was hinted at by the AfD's closing admin. — BillC ^talk 01:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you Bill, but it has been just a few days, and trying to 'virtually' delete it so soon without a valid rationale seems a bit WP:POINTy to me. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps his actions can be considered a 'wake-up call'. My intentions above haven't changed. Regards, — BillC ^talk 01:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to the redirect. If Scienceapologist wants to find references for the information in the article or add new referenced content that would be fine. If not, or if he's intent on destroying the article despite the recent AfD, then he'll just have to be reverted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

SA, it's you that has been relentlessly arguing that this article has various deficiencies. You have no right to be making demands of others when you are the one with the complaint. Abyssal (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Argument: no content worth keeping. If you would like to dispute this argument, make your case. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is baseless. Completely. Would you really assert that a list of entities reported in the context of UFO-related claims would not be useful information for someone researching the UFO phenomenon? Abyssal (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, SA, very mature. You couldn't actually get the page deleted so now you just want to delete the content. If you have such issues with the article, then make corrections. But please stop this childish nonsense. Make constructive contributions instead of being chronically disruptive. Abyssal (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a content-based argument. If you have one, make it. The 96 hours are counting down. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Until what? One of us reverts another one of your disruptive edits? You have no right to hold articles hostage and no position from which to make demands, SA. Abyssal (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Though the article needs some more work, a good portion is already sourced. SA, do you believe that all of those sources are inadequate? Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They are for the purposes to which they are being put. Why is the article still referencing things to the Washington Post article? I'll repeat what I said in the AfD discussion. The article claims that:

1. Nordic aliens come from Venus and/or the Pleiades
2. Nordic aliens are abducting entities.
3. Nordic aliens have "various" origins.

Not one of these statements is supported by the Washington Post article to which they have been cited. — BillC ^talk 06:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd probably remove the origin and temperament sections altogether, as well as the overarching classification scheme, since most of those things are surely original research. But aren't the sources at least good enough to prove that these entities are discussed in the "UFO community"? That's what I really intended to ask. Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research? Puh-leez. It's common knowledge that that the Hopkinsville goblins were part of a CE-3. It's common knowledge that Nordics are reported to abduct people. This is stuff that shouldn't even need sourcing calling them "original research" is absurd. Abyssal (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT seems appropriate. The discussion of these items in the "UFO community" is not relevant per WP:FRINGE. In order to be relevant, independent sources need to acknowledge that these discussions are somehow prominent enough to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE repeatedly states that...

"A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

Surely you don't think these claims have been ignored by skeptics, do you? ;) Abyssal (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I am less inclined to care about your opinion SA. You have been nothing but hostile since this discussion began. If you decide you want to start reverting and deleting, I am sure there are plenty of people here who will be happy to discuss it futher in other forums. You have made it very clear that you want the material deleted, regardless of price, and regardless of the outcome of the AFD. I see no reason to convince you on this talk page any futher as you are simply "counting down" to start an edit war. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a content-based rationale. Provide one. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "The subject matter itself is notable, even if a bit "unusual" (or crazy). It is absolutely verifiable as plenty of newspapers love to write about this stuff, which itself demonstrates notability." which is what I have already said in the AFD. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Administrator note As the admin who closed the AfD, I may be biased on this subject, but anyway: I want to remind everyone here that any edit-warring over basics of the article, especially over whether this article should be an redirect, will not be tolerated. If anyone is unhappy with the outcome of the AfD, they can request a deletion review or request dispute resolution to solve the difference of opinions. Regards SoWhy 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)