Jump to content

Talk:Grey alien

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

Neutrality

[edit]

I've added a POV tag to this article because I believe it takes a biased stance in two key areas:

1. Skeptical bias regarding the existence of Alien Greys: The article appears to lean heavily toward the assumption that Grey aliens do not exist, without adequately representing the perspectives of those who believe in their existence. While skepticism is important, Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that all significant viewpoints be represented fairly and proportionally. The current tone and content seem dismissive of the possibility of their existence, which could alienate readers who hold differing views.

2. Assumption of mistreatment in abduction accounts: The article seems to take the position that alleged abductees are being mistreated by Greys, rather than considering alternative interpretations; for example, it does not explore the possibility that abductees' reactions could stem from instinctual fear responses to encountering something exotic or unknown, rather than actual harm or malice. This perspective should be included to provide a more balanced view of abduction narratives.

To address these issues and improve the article's neutrality, I suggest the following steps:

  • Broaden representation of viewpoints: Include perspectives from believers and experiencers alongside skeptical views, ensuring that all significant opinions are covered proportionally.
  • Neutralize tone: Revise language that appears dismissive or overly skeptical to maintain an encyclopedic tone.
  • Expand discussion of abduction narratives: Add content exploring alternative interpretations of abductees' experiences, such as psychological or instinctual responses to unfamiliar stimuli.
  • Cite diverse sources: Incorporate reliable sources from both skeptical and believer perspectives to ensure balanced coverage.

I welcome feedback and suggestions from other editors on how we can work together to address these concerns and improve the article's neutrality. Mesoutopia (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order of your numbered points:
1. Please read WP:YWAB. A bias in favor of skepticism with respect to a subject whose origins in popular culture are well-documented and known to be fictitious is entirely proper.
2. I have no idea how you might propose to fix this, considering that the article is neutrally conveying the narratives spun by those who claim to be abducted.
In order of your bulleted suggestions:
  • That is explicitly against policy. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.
  • Also a violation of our policy.
  • Provide sources and we will do so. Without sources: we don't make shit up.
  • There are no reliable sources for claims of fact from a believer's perspective. Sorry. That's just how it is.
Looking at your contributions, I see that you've made a number of changes to this article, many of which are not improvements (e.g. adding "allegedly" to a sentence which describes what a particular person believed. It is inapropriate for us to presume that he didn't actually believe what he told us he believed), so I need to review those now.
EDIT: I've just reviewed your changes. I don't see "alien grey" in the sourcing as a name for them, and it's an odd use of English word order, so I've removed it. You had already corrected the issue with your introduction of the word "allegedly", so I didn't do anything with that. Indeed, the current wording is a bit of an improvement. I also appreciate the way you reworded the introductory paragraph. It reads much better now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your careful input and kind words. You make great points. Though "Alien Grey" does indeed seem to break the rules of the English language, its popularity as a descriptor is evidenced by a cursory internet search, which shows that the term "Alien Grey" yields quite a great deal of results, especially in the more well-known print UFOlogical publications such as those authored by Whitley Strieber. However, you're correct that none of the sources of the article material explicitly use this term, which, of course, is a relevant reason for it not to be included at this time. Mesoutopia (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to find a few hits for "alien grey" or "alien gray" in a google search, most of which were print-on-demand t-shirt sites. I don't think that really evinces the claim. If you can find a reliable source which states that is a common name for them, that would satisfy me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

The infobox image was changed in this edit. Although it's more "artistic", it's very dark and only shows heads. I believe the previous image, while not as "polished", is more informative for readers. Schazjmd (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the new image is heavy on drama. More suited to an entertainment or commercial venue, not an encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Onemillionthtree and Mesoutopia:, both of you have recently changed the image; would you like to weigh in on this discussion? Schazjmd (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you @Schazjmd. I agree with @LuckyLouie that a full-body image would work better. I'll make it a goal to find a more polished image that is equally informative. Mesoutopia (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Onemillionthtree I just saw the image you replaced mine with, and it looks great--it's lighter, so that you see more of the image and the torso, but the B&W version of it is more suitable, as it can be seen as they can be seen as grey-colored, or that they're some other color and it's just a black and white image, as these alleged beings have been reported as having multiple color variations, so it's more representative of the alleged subject(s) of the article. I say keep it until a better one can be found, because that old one looked like something out of a Cracker Jack box. Mesoutopia (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The new image has more artistic quality - v. 1281335011 is of inferior artistic quality - less detail, less realistic quality portrayal - the image shows elements of the extraterrestrial which I think (I don't know) weren't stated as existing - i.e. the extraterrestrial wasn't without clothing - from the intro description the current shows the same details - the portrayal of genitalia is not useful and not possible if there isn't any evidence of how to show this aspect. 1020423390 isn't shown past about this v. and is replaced with image of v. 1281335011. The current v. is complementary with 1020423390 - a similar image - torso only; since "Roswell Greys" is one of the identifying subjects this image should be reused. I would continue with the elimination of use of v. 1281335011; it is sketchy and not realistic enough - the subject is actual real aliens existing in our reality not drawings with colour filled similarly to a painting portrayal. More realistic allows the viewer to sense more and so with perception the option/possibility of a type of response of agreement or disagreement in this reality is provided. Onemillionthtree (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Onemillionthtree, looks like our replies got crossed and my posted before I saw yours. I agree with you 100%! The image as you have it now looks much better. I vote to keep it. Mesoutopia (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current v. has no nasal passages - this would suggest no breathing - 1020423390 has nasal aspect Onemillionthtree (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO in the current version, the beings seem to have nasal passages, but just very subtle-to-nearly-unnoticeable nostrils. Regardless, a lack of nasal passages wouldn't suggest no breathing, only breathing through the mouth. Mesoutopia (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Through mouth is a possible reality - but the image has to depict the actual statements of the individuals - the possibility of mouth isn't a possible reason to use this option as it would be a fiction of the current documents: a falsification - unless you can show that no nasal chambers is the most commonly occurring descriptive given in the documents; obvs. this could be a time-consuming and effort filled necessity per 1020423390 ref. 1: "73% of US reports are of grey aliens" Bryan, C. D. B. (1995) Using qwant in image search most images show nasal; perhaps someone has already summarized the information on this aspect into a helpful indication somewhere. As much as this option is superior of 1281335011 I would now suggest replacing the current v. with 1020423390 until: with nasal is made unless contrary evidence is found/stated. Onemillionthtree (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously nasal would indicate either air breathing or gas exchange - the question of if this is realistic: probabilities that the same evolutionary mechanism could have occurred on different planets is irrelevant. That's obvious. Onemillionthtree (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should edit the image to give them little nasal passages. I will do this at some time I'm not currently making the change. I think it should be an imperative to preserve the image use as if/or not is a conflict but other pre-existing images which have support from sources with authority show nasal. Onemillionthtree (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea. I have another version of it that shows more of their bodies, as well. I'm on it. Mesoutopia (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grey aliens aren't just heads and shoulders, so a more full-length representation should be found in the future. The discussion on the talk page that resulted in the cartoonish grey alien replacing the Communion book cover took place in April 2021. [1] 5Q5|✉ 10:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the subject is actual real aliens existing in our reality not drawings with colour filled similarly to a painting portrayal. More realistic allows the viewer to sense more and so with perception the option/possibility of a type of response of agreement or disagreement in this reality is provided. Er, no. This is an encyclopedia. Leave the provocative and attention-getting graphics to the pop culture mags and tabloid media. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the creator of the image that was replaced. That image was chosen (from multiple candidates) as the result of this discussion. I do not support using either of the two images offered as replacements here for various reasons, not least of which is the fact that they appear to be AI generated, and are currently being discussed for deletion on commons, while a discussion as to whether or not to ban the use of AI images for illustrative purposes on en.WP is currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AI images and it seems very likely to pass. I'm restoring the image I provided for now. If the feeling here is that a realistic 3d image is preferable, then I can produce one. In fact, I'd already begun to do so back when I made the current one, and I still have the files from that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "not least of which": I didn't find an obvious proportion of support for "absolute ban" in the discussion - the discussion has more than I could immediately (scan-read) read number of and amount of replies - I didn't count the responses - there wasn't any conclusion shown - so enforcing now isn't possible if you aren't empowered to do. "I do not support using either of the two images " - that is obvs. because the 1st image aliens were green which isn't possible to accept. "That image was chosen (from multiple candidates) as the result of this discussion." is not a reason to keep since at least I am and Mesoutopia opinioned against reversion - there is always scope for possible improvement - I indicated a criticism of the image. In a contest of type of image you would have to state how a simpler v. & full-body are both better suited for illustration-information. I made an error perhaps in indicating - parts of body below upper torso isn't included - as I only read the intro. I provide the images here for the sake of immediate comparison. I could support re-using the 1281335011 v. but at a smaller scale - since this image has less detail there isn't any more to look at if larger: there is no loss of detail in a smaller scale version.
    Onemillionthtree (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This reads to me like your whole argument is "I can't be bothered to read a discussion and I don't believe in following an existing consensus because I found one other person who agrees with me." I'll note that you haven't responded to 5Q5's concerns, which were some of the specific concerns I made the previous image to address. Which is laid out in the discussion you've been linked to twice now, by two different users. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly there is no obvious advantage to providing 1281335011 at a larger scale as there isn't any more detail to perceive in larger so it is not obvious what more could be learned from such a visual provision. Onemillionthtree (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. What does the number refer to? Who said anything about making the image larger? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my post above, the full-length graphic as been readded to the article in the body instead of the infobox. I think the article looks good now in terms of there being at least one image showing arms and legs, as reported by alleged witnesses. Grey aliens also exist in art (comic books, memes, etc) so a cartoonish representation fits the topic also. My only concern with the infobox group image now is that the shading is excessive. Not everyone has their screen set to super bright to see details and the left side facial features can't be seen on all devices (including mine). This could be fixed in an editor to brighten the dark areas just a bit. 5Q5|✉ 12:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HG Wells

[edit]

" Your belief in the reality of grey aliens is immaterial." Including the information isn't an expression of my belief - if the existence of the supposed extra-terrestrials is neither proven/disproven then the subject is fact with regards to: a supposed existing organism, this doesn't make consideration of the subject relevant to fictitious imaginings - especially since - as I indicated "has hair" "has bright red lips" isn't possible as an example. Your opinion "This is sourced content that is about the subject." is only a reiteration of the position for the inclusion - that it is sourced provides no merit-credence to the use of the source if it isn't relevant: the query of if it is relevant: if the discussion in the article must be with regards to actual extra-terrestrials - this wouldn't be shown by someone who imagined something similar whose imaginings are now classified as fiction - it doesn't provide any evidence of the existence - the only evidence value providing Wells has is in the hypothetical situation (which is supposition): if there was some earlier contact with a similar lifeform which we have now no documentary evidence of so that in the context of human society and culture this connection existed in the consciousnesses of humans and through changes caused in the consciousnesses of associated humans Wells in his milleu was caused to think some anomaly existed in society on Earth and so created a version of the "time-traveller hypothesis" - that there is some similarity in description is just a coincidental of earlier imaginings of Wells - the article introduces "extraterrestrials" - this isn't compatible with Wells because "time-traveller hypothesis" is Earthly humans from the future. Onemillionthtree (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cited Levy/Mendlesohn source is quite explicit in stating that descriptions of characters in the works of H.G. Wells are very similar to later descriptions of gray aliens, and have helped form a template for modern pop conceptions of aliens. It's quite relevant to the "origins" section of our article. Please stop trying to delete it without consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"purported" or "supposed or suggested actual"

[edit]

@LuckyLouie:

"purported" or "supposed or suggested actual" There are some neutral definitions (I didn't survey the complete number because of the contrary definitions):

"although you may not always believe that claim." https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/purport: the repeated indication of if it is believable or not is not a rleevant value for the consideration - belief is only a weak version of knowledge based on flawed logic - that mine or anyones strongly held notion of knowledge could be based on insufficient evidence - the obvious correct response is a version of the Socratic position which is that it isn't possible to know - there is no way to know: indicating skepticism is a failed logic position - the conclusion must be there is no way to prove or disprove. Skepticism is not a neutral position; in the example of UFO statements: the majority are discredited a small number remain unexplained (I will provide the relevant numbers if requested) - proof at one of the unexplained is sufficeint proof - indicating any skepticism includes the possibility of the discounting of any proofs - which isn't the same as: insufficient evidence to prove.

Onemillionthtree (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grey_alien&oldid=1281835245"