Jump to content

Talk:List of alleged alien beings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

UFO Definition

I have changed the definition of UFOs to "apparent flying objects which are popularly believed to remain unidentified..." The previous wording, stating that the "CANNOT be identified..." suggested that UFO actually defy basic physics, which is not the intended meaning here. Rather, UFOs are more commonly objects that in the popular imagination cannot be explained, or that thus far have not been explained. This new wording more accurately reflects this meaning. Locke9k (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)


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)
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)

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 talkcontribs 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)

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)

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)
Not a content based argument. Since the "UFO phenomenon" is purely in the realm of the fantasmagorical and held to exist only by the insane and deluded, we must conform articles on the subject to a mainstream treatment of the subject. This can be done at Unidentified flying object where the minimal amount of verifiable material included here can be inserted. No arguments have been made as to why this content fork should exist, but I'm willing to listen to anyone who cares to make a content-based argument. So far, I have seen exactly one content-based argument made by Bill C who essentially seems to think that the article should be culled of unverfiable claims. This has not happened. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 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)
Are the Nordics really said to have abducted people? Abduction implies that they're taking people against their will. My understanding is that Nordics are supposed to be "friendly".
Let's not start talking about common knowledge. For now, let's just focus on the things that can be referenced to good sources. Zagalejo^^^ 19:20, 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)
Cite for each one? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The grays, Hopkinsville goblin, and Flatwoods monster have all been discussed, in detail, in Skeptical Inquirer. George Adamski has an entry in the American National Biography, which discusses his claims of "space friends" and "Venusians". Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Skeptical Inquirer does not serve as a source for connecting any of these allegations to UFOs, nor does it assert that these are entities. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding? All of them associate the subjects with UFOs -- one has "UFO" in the title. And if they're not described as entities, what are they? The SI articles needn't describe them as real creatures. The topic of this list is alleged entities, and the articles do assert that these aliens are alleged by someone to exist. Zagalejo^^^ 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
They are not "entities", they are figments of the imagination. The title is ambiguous. It is "alleged" that they are associated with UFOs, however, there is no allowance for the fact that none of the so-called "entities" exist. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Alleged modifies the entire phrase "UFO-related entities". Zagalejo^^^ 23:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That's really poor grammar then and is essentially a complex statement. I suggest moving the article to List of aliens and spirits believers associate with UFOs if you are trying to say that the entire phrase is being modified. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:55, 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)
That rationale is why we might want to cover the subject at Unidentified flying object. We can easily merge the content that is verified to that article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
And that is your singular opinion. Being the person with the rationale, I would say you have misinterpreted it for the benefit of having it fit your world view. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You have made no substantive edits to the article, have not commented once on the content, and have not offered a defense of the POV-fork other than Wikilawyering. Either start being an editor or stop bothering the good people at this page, please. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

information 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)

Edit warring hasn't happened. We have a proposal on the table to redirect and merge the verified content into Unidentified flying object. So far, no one has put forth a counter argument based on the content of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, edit warring is what is happening. I just removed SA's tags for advert, cleanup, confusing, fansite, globalize, in-universe, introrewrite, notability, original research, peacock, primarysources, refimprove, self-published, tone and unencyclopedic. How this is an advert, or a fansite, or confusing, or self-published, or why it has multiple source tags, well, it isn't possible, it is violating WP:POINT. And it appears that others patience is close to exhausted as well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
So are you admitting to edit warring? If so, maybe you should stay away from this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another good redirect

There is another possible redirect List of UFO sightings. I have been bold and redirected there since all the allegations of aliens made by certifiable fanatics can be covered there more easily. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and reverted. I was attempting to clean up the list last night, but had to take a break. Will you give me some more time? Zagalejo^^^ 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
We could possibly merge this material with another article at a later date. But at least wait until I've done all I can with this one. Zagalejo^^^ 19:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That is backward. See WP:CFORK. I will merge your material into the appropriate article and you can fork when the parent article becomes too large. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
So you're going to merge sloppy content into another article? Let's try to get it right first, then merge it. What happened to your 96 hour ultimatum? Not that you have the authority to issue such demands, but if you're going to do it, you should at least stick with it. Zagalejo^^^ 23:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's better to see the proper context for this content than to allow it to stick out like a sore thumb. If you want to "get it right first", then why not fix it in a sandbox? You don't seem to have a rationale for keeping the article separate, but I'm willing to listen. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there's enough decent material already. Your argument about the Skeptical Inquirer sources boils down to a language argument, not a argument about reliability. Zagalejo^^^ 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that there's enough decent material to merge it into another article and then we can see if a CFORK is warranted as the policy says we should do. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you do perform a merge, than actually merge something. Don't just turn the page into a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is already effectively demolished and its obvious that SA is not going to quit until all that's left is gone too. I'm not getting into an edit war here reverting an endless stream of his disruptive ideology-driven edits.

I think this had the potential to be an informative and useful article for anyone interested in UFOlogy whether they ascribe any credibility to it or not. Sadly I have not been able to assist in any way, largely because I have been too busy trying to keep the article alive to actually make contributions to it.

In any case I don't have time for stupid childish games with destructive users. I have nearly 3,000 articles on my watchlist, the vast majority of them are more important encyclopedically and to me personally, If you need me, I'll be editing one of those. Abyssal (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting such a long article has 95% of the same effect as deleting it. Therefore, redirecting without consensus is evading the Articles for Deletion process, and he's done it before. It's like saying "That isn't a sockpuppet, it's my 6-year-old son", or like "'Stupid' isn't uncivil; he's such an idiot that 'stupid' is a compliment." It avoids any rational discussion of distinguishing resisting pseudoscience from censorship. And if he weren't perceived as resisting pseudoscience, he wouldn't get special privileges, as he gets on this page. If pseudoscience wars require such extreme tactics, then let's put that into WP:FRINGE so everyone can debate it. Art LaPella (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a "long article"? Okay, I guess compared to some of the WP:DYKs it might be. But you'd know better than I, right? Is there "no consensus" for a redirect? Sure. But how would we know unless we ask? AfD doesn't determine the existence of consensus to redirect, especially not when the closure of the debate is "no consensus". The goal is to try out new ideas and see what sticks and what doesn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
So ask. Don't just unilaterally redirect. Art LaPella (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
BRD says being bold is a perfectly legitimate way to ask. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
AfD, rejection, redirect, revert, redirect is better summarized as BRBRB, which WP:BRD forbids. Art LaPella (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The AfD was closed "no consensus". I boldly tried a redirect to one article. People argued it was the wrong article. I boldly tried redirection to another article. It's BRDBRD. BRD does not forbid that, it encourages it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
So replace the article with the words "Nothing important." That hasn't been specifically rejected yet. If they protest again, you could try "Nothing much important" ... Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
While stubbing the article is not necessarily a bad idea, stubbing with those words is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Making this suggestion seems to me to indicate that you think my redirects were also a violation of WP:POINT which is certainly a lack of good faith. I've made my case, you don't buy it you could try explaining why.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your good faith is a complicated issue, although you clearly don't believe your stated rationale and further re-explanation would be counter-productive. Art LaPella (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, an argument against either redirect is that both suggested targets are fairly large articles, 57K (List of UFO sightings) and 78K (UFOs). This article does not seem to be a content fork of either. The topic is not identical to that of either target, although it is a subtopic of the big UFO article, which is naturally and easily splittable from that article. It seems to me that those desiring a merge/redirect should make a better argument for these actions, which I do not see here or at the AfD. The only approach to argument seems to be the statement "no content worth keeping." This I consider false, as there was some already in the article and some due to Zagalejo which is clearly worth keeping. And in any case this seems to have been abandoned, by the agreement that content should be merged, not merely be replaced by a redirect. Regards, John Z (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities , I have entered a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_ScienceApologist DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You might have tried to offer content-specific suggestions or tried to work on the problems with me, but no matter. If that's the route you wish to go on... ScienceApologist (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The intro was trying to duplicate the UFO article. I've edited it to suit this article, namely to describe what the list is all about. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You Forgot

There is another type of alien The Norcids --60.225.245.139 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Nordics? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_alleged_alien_beings/Archive_1&oldid=336478787"