Talk:Alien abduction claimants

Merge Discuss
Both articles deal with a single subject. Suggest this to be the primary article --Haruth (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Superficially they look the same, but they are different in two ways, temporally and intent. Contactees were generally found early in modern UFO history, roughly from the 1940s to 1980s after which abductees stories became dominant.  As for intent, the article says it best: "Contactee accounts are generally different from those who allege alien abduction, in that while contactees usually describe beneficial experiences involving human-like aliens, abductees rarely describe their experiences positively.".   Abductees are not generally considered a subset of contactees and making Contactees the primary article is an oversimplification.
 * Sean Donovan (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC) (author of "Contactee - Was Daniel W. Fry Telling the Truth?" and the Daniel Fry Dot Com website)
 * - Having said that, it might be good to merge Alien abduction with Alien abduction claimants
 * I would oppose both merges for what it's worth. Abyssal (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be quite wrong to merge Alien abduction or Alien abduction claimants with Contactees for a number of reasons. The most obvious being that a 'contactee' is not neccessarily an 'abductee'. Do we place all those people who have had a close encounter of the 4th or even 5th kind as 'abductees' even though they were never supposedly 'abducted'? (Yogiadept (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC))

Globalise
Not exclusively a US phenomenon, but claimed elsewhere.

Also, not all abduction accounts deal with greys. Greys tend to feature more in the USA, and more recently in English speaking areas of the world heavily influenced by that culture. -MacRùsgail (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)