Talk:Grey alien/Archive 3

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,

“<I>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.</I>” (Sec. II)

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


 * 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 <I>humans</I>, 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)


 * 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 ... <I>"This work is based on the author's experience of a five-day UFO conference...",</I>. 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 <I>with my own personal experience</I>. The article is unsourced - from the very first line we have <I>"Grey aliens, also referred to as Zeta Reticulans, Roswell Greys,..."</I> 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 <I>not</I> describe the Selenites (natives of the Moon) “<I>as having grey skin, big heads, and large black eyes.</I>”

Wells himself described them variously as: “<I>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”</I> (pp. 136-7), <I>“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”</I> (pp. 152-3), <I>“Selenite came and patted each of our faces with his tentacles”, “spiked round helmets and cylindrical body-cases”</I> (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)


 * 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: <I>"Grey aliens, also referred to as Zeta Reticulans, Roswell Greys,..."</I>. 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:


 * “<I>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.</I>”


 * 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 “<I>Eyes large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful</I>” That’s it – Wells’ description of future man’s eyes <I>in toto</I>. That cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, construed as Haight’s “<I>oval-shaped pitch-black eyes</I>".


 * 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)


 * 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:
 * 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.
 * Sigh, ignore the problem and keep the version you think is wrong.
 * Find another secondary source which has the correct description, then replace it.
 * 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.
 * Locate the Haight source and find out that Haight has been misquoted by the Wikipedia article.
 * Check the history of the article and find out who introduced the source. That is what I would do.
 * 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.
 * 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 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.


 * Ignore rules, force change, get banned, no thanks.
 * 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.
 * 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 “<I>Eyes large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful</I>” (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 <I>reliable</I> secondary sources simply quote the man himself (cf. eyes). What I cannot do however, is replace an existing false statement with <I>any</I> 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.
 * Show the secondary source (Haight) to be unreliable… Before we even start on what he may or may not have said, Haight <I>is</I> 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)


 * 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: “<I>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.</I>”

However, in Wells’ short essay "Man of the Year Million" (1893) H. G. Wells nowhere described future man as “<I>grey-skinned</I>”, nor did Wells discuss future man’s height. Moreover, Wells describes future man’s eyes as “<I>large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful</I>”. 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 “<I>oval-shaped pitch-black eyes</I>".

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:

“<I>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.</I>”

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)


 * 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:

“<I>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.</I>”) to

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

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)
 * Here is my advice to you. (1) copy the entire article into draft space and make all your edits to it there, along with edit summaries to keep a record of what you’ve done. When you’ve whipped the article into shape we’ll review and get consensus to publish the revised article. (2) give us a link to your draft here. We’ll answer any policy or procedural questions you may have. (3) WP:WALLOFTEXT comments on talk pages are very unpopular on Wikipedia. Businesslike (or chatty but not overly long) summaries and lack of hyperbole are appreciated. I think you could be a valuable editor, especially if you have the time to rework problem articles. Best regards. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your vote of confidence and kind suggestion LuckyLouie, I will think about it. For now, action is required to remove the false attributions and statements I have so far highlighted. Please, can you suggest a way of doing that? Who are the gatekeepers on this page? What if I did a test delete to see if anyone reacts to reverse it, then I will talk to whoever reversed it to ask what their interest or role in the page is? I want to work within Wikipedia protocols and with other editors and doing a test delete might seem a good way - or the only way I can think of - to discover who has the strongest interest in the page and then to work with them on getting some action going on the false statements etc? What do you think? Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

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

“<I>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.</I>”

This is what Levy and Mendlesohn actually had to say about the matter: "<I>Gustav Sandgren, writing as Gabriel Linde, further refined the literary predescessors of grays in his 1933 novel</I> Den okända faran. (The Unknown Danger) <I>Sandgren’s aliens solidify the appearance of grays, as his description is the template upon which the popular conception of these beings rest.</I>"(p.135)

That is the sum total of Levy and Mendlesohn’s contribution <I>vis.</I> 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:

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

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:

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

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

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

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

“<I>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.</I>”

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 <I>suggestion</I> 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:

“<I>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).</I>”

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 <I>not</I> 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:

“<I>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.</I>”

Thus, Wikipedia’s “<I>Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map"</I> 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:

“<I>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.</I>”

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

Aliens in history
As the History section of this article is being decimated by false claims which require removal, if you want historical aliens from 1895, then the article "Gynecological Gymnastics from Outer Space" (1895) literally stands as the perfect exemplar. You can see grey aliens anywhere if you want or need to create a false historical narrative. I am reminded of the admonition <I>correlation does not equal causation</I>. Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Folklore
There's a significant amount of material in folklore studies about abduction by aliens, as well as 'types' of aliens that have popped up in modern popular culture. I recommend identifying some of these sources and applying them to this article—it should solve many of the issues that no doubt regularly pop up here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input Bloodofox. Yes, there are many types of creature that have appeared in folklaw over the ages, many of them I am sure might be construed as resembling the modern image of the iconic grey alien, however as you recognise yourself, those purported aliens were just one among a panoply. The question is, how did the grey alien (as we have come to know and love) become singled out from the panoply to become culturally iconic? That is a question the current grey alien article does not successfully make clear. Alternatively, I have written an article that makes precisely clear when, how and why the grey alien became culturally iconic. That article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tesldact_Smih/sandbox) is intended to replace the current article. If you are genuinely interested in the topic, I would sincerely welcome your comments or suggestions. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed global change: Seeking constructive reviews
To anyone interested in the Grey Alien page,

Inspired by Hob Gadling (talk) and prompted by LuckyLouie (talk) I have written a replacement Grey Alien article.

That proposed replacement article may be found here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tesldact_Smih/sandbox)

Naturally I would welcome any constructive comments or suggestions for improvement, and I would be pleased to work with any other editor with a genuine interest before any steps toward change might be made.

Thank you in advance for your time and interest.Tesldact Smih (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I apologize if this sounds harsh, but the proposed replacement contains excessive original research. It is not written in an encyclopedic manner. It contains way too much content not directly relevant to the topic.   Schazjmd   (talk)  15:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Tesldact Smih, I'm sorry but I must agree. I encouraged you to read Wikipedias's editorial policies, paying special attention to WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:MOS etc. What you appear to have created is a paper in classic academic style rather than an article in WP's encyclopedic style. That is, your sources are being used as springboards for personal editorial opinion and conclusions rather than simply reporting what the sources say without comment. WP's brand of encyclopedic writing can be hard to get used to. The trick is to describe only what the sources are saying in your own words to avoid plagiarism, yet not go beyond them to add what you may feel are obvious conclusions and connections. Your draft article also quickly veers off the specific topic into an extensive discussion of UFOs in general, and there is a problem with the number and length of quotations (see WP:MOSQUOTE). Wikipedia is also particular about sourcing. There are some high quality sources used in your draft, however things like rense.com, blogspots, books by UFOlogists, other Wikipedia articles, etc. are not considered WP:RS or WP:FRIND sources, so could not be used. At this point, it might be helpful for you to examine some of the encyclopedia's high quality articles (see WP:FA) and note how they are written and structured to adhere to core editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I echo the comments of User:Schazjmd and User:LuckyLouie. Your contribution statistics indicate that you spent much effort creating this document. That was a lot of work, and I credit you for that. What you have created, however, is unfortunately not suitable for an encyclopedia. And that's what Wikipedia is, an encyclopedia. Your work might - might - after considerable editing and re-writing, ultimately serve as the basis for an article on a specialist blog site, or perhaps as a self-published document/book/treatise of some sort. As it is currently structured, however, and as the other editors mention above, your proposed article is rife with original research and fringe claims, inaccuracies (e.g., Bob Lazar might think he is a physicist, but he is not), and material that has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the nominal topic at hand. None of those attributes are suitable for a Wikipedia page. The tone throughout is also heavily sensationalist and flowery, which is perhaps fine for the audience of a pro-fringe website or podcast, but not for the audience of a mainstream encyclopedia.
 * If you truly wish to edit Grey alien and/or similar articles on Wikipedia, please follow the excellent advice given to you by LuckyLouie: familiarize yourself with WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, etc. I know that is a lot of reading, but trust me, it is worth the effort. After you have done that I suggest the following, which I recognize could be different from what others might have advised: rather than attempting to replace articles in toto, focus your initial edits upon brief segments of an article that you wish to improve. Then edit accordingly with brief, non-flowery text that is, in every single case, reliably sourced. Give it a try! If, however, that approach does not match your style of writing, or otherwise does not appeal to you, then perhaps you should reconsider whether Wikipedia is the proper platform for your work. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I probably should have advised reworking small sections. Based on the previous Talk page activity where TesldactSmih was doing a line by line critique of the article, I expected they might submit a copy edit of the existing article rather than a new, original work 10X its size. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you LuckyLouie, Schazjmd  and JoJo Anthrax for your kind and helpful comments and suggestions. I can see how some of your points are valid. Now that I have some specific guidelines to follow, I am sure I can ensure the article follows those guidelines - it can be a little daunting for a novice – I do my best and apologise if I seem a little slow on the uptake regarding the technical issues.

So while I contemplate how best to move forward with that (now the bones are in place), if I might trouble you with the actual content…

Generally, I think we can all agree that we want the grey alien article to be as accurate and reliable as it can be. In its current form, my contention is that it is inaccurate - as my article demonstrates. The obvious conclusion being that grey aliens did not enter popular culture until 1987. Does anyone have any reliable evidence that grey aliens entered popular culture before that date? I am certainly willing to consider it – I am not ideologically wedded to that date, it is merely a date my own research led me to. Others, with more knowledge than I might know something I do not (entirely probable). I seek the truth, the historical facts of the matter, nothing more, nothing less. I am evidence driven - show me the reliable evidence and I am with you. Can anyone push that 1987 date back?

Thank all you again for your kind comments and suggestions, I will consider how best to shape my article to conform to WP guidelines, but if I could receive some feedback on the actual content, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We rely on secondary sources to identify "firsts". For example, our source might be a scholarly work on the history of grey aliens, and the author would literally have written, "grey aliens first entered popular culture in 1987" or similar. Lacking that, we'd simply note that Strieber described grey aliens in his 1987 book (again, sourced to a secondary source other than Strieber) without further comment. We don't insert our own point of view, or try to find evidence to support a premise we've decided on. And speaking of this, I was reviewing your draft and noticed this, which is disturbing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * After a quick search on JSTOR, I found this 1995 journal paper which implies an earlier popularizer of grey aliens: (The paper also notes the wide variety in alien descriptions until the UFO community began to form a consensus on alien appearance, saying Those reports that match the preferred descriptions are heavily publicized, those that do not are considered hoaxes or ignored altogether.) Schazjmd   (talk)  14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, since the current article currently cites Innumerable books and movies were made about the Betty & Barney Hill abduction. It was the introduction of the gray alien into popular culture., I'm not clear why you seem to think that any mentions of grey aliens prior to Strieber's book are irrelevant. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone find grey aliens in popular culture before 1987?
In reply to LuckyLouie and  Schazjmd  (previous section)

Okay, let’s conduct a little forensic analysis.

Nothing in ufology (or any field of human endeavour) can be taken at face value. Just because someone claims something to be true, does not mean that it is true. The problem for researchers, particularly in ufology (and you know this to be true) IS the secondary sources. Sources within ufology are inherently unreliable. Just because people like Bader <I>claim</I> that <I>”most UFO researchers now believe the Grey is responsible for UFO abductions”</I> does not make that claim true.

The challenge for any UFO researcher is to <I>verify</I> Bader’s claim. Now I cannot find any UFO researcher who was claiming grey aliens before 1987, including Bud Hopkins. If you can show me anywhere that Bud Hopkins or any UFO researcher was claiming grey aliens BEFORE 1987, then you may have a point.

However, that is all moot because in this case (but still a critical factor overall), the date of Bader’s publication is 1995 (interesting date huh? Santilli…) - and Bader’s term is “now believe” (meaning in 1995). I am talking about pre-1987, Bader is talking pre-1995. So Bader’s claim does not push grey aliens back before 1987.

If anyone can produce a pre-1987 publication that talks about grey aliens, then you may have the beginnings of a point. Bader is interesting. He because he does make the point that there was a panoply before US ufologists somehow collectively decided to standardise their aliens (which is an utterly ridiculous claim – have you ever tried herding cats?). So we have Europe tracking along with the panoply, while the US shifts to greys.

Let’s concede Bader's general point (because it is a general historical fact that the US did shift to greys before anyone else) while ignoring his ridiculous causal attribution. We then need to find a cause. Look around in 1995 and what do you see? Strieber and Lear hit town in 1987. Strieber was not claiming grey aliens, but Lear (Lazar was not yet out) certainly was. In 1989 Lazar came out on popular TV and Area 51 and “greys” went global. That’s where “greys” came from. Lazar just co-opted Strieber’s aliens and termed them “greys.” Santilli in 1995 merely cemented that into popular culture.

As for Betty and Barney Hill, if anyone can show where either Betty or Barney Hill was claiming grey aliens before 1987 (Barney died in 1969) then they may have a point. Until 1987, grey aliens were just one among a panoply. There may have been grey aliens, but they were certainly not in popular culture before 1987 …unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise.

A couple of pertinent facts to try and get ahead of the curve:

First, Marjorie Fish’s Zeta Reticulii interpretation of Betty’s “Star map” was not published until 1974 (Terence Dickinson in the December 1974 issue of ASTRONOMY Magazine ) – and that was the first Betty heard about Fish’s interpretation. Fish actually did interview Betty in 1968 (or ’69… ugh my memory), but that was just to get information about the map. But after 1974 neither Fish nor Hill were claiming ZR was the source for “grey” aliens - merely the source for the Hill’s aliens – Betty was pleased that Fish had located her aliens and often thereafter referred to her aliens as “Zeta Reticulans” (never as grey aliens).

The question then is: Who first claimed Zeta Reticulii was the source for “grey” aliens? Yes, you guessed it …our old mate Bob Lazar (beginning in 1987 via Lear at first, then in person after 1989) – coinciding with Strieber’s release of Communion also in 1987 and Movie in 1989. Communion came first btw…

Second, Betty and Barney’s description of the aliens. They can be concatenated from the original source (the 1964 tape recordings) They are extremely interesting in light of this conversation. If you read carefully, you can see where grey aliens come from. But you can also see that information has been cherry picked from the vast bulk of the descriptions which do <I>not</I> characterise grey aliens at all. Now you may indeed ask why that information might have been cherry picked - because that is a very, very, good question… (and people like Bader and Dunning are at the heart of the answer...)

Betty and Barney Hill descriptions of their aliens, in their own words (Feb-May 1964), as quoted in Fuller (1966).

Note: Wherever you see a “;” it means a separate mention (and that there is text in between, sometimes a word or two, sometimes asentence or two, sometimes a paragraph...).

1. DURING THE HYPNOSIS SESSIONS BARNEY

"<I>I saw a group of men, and they were standing in the highway; The men were dressed alike; they were wearing uniforms; They were all in dark clothing; some type of shiny black uniform; I thought I saw a cluster of six men. Because three of them came to me, and three did not.

there is the military pilot, and he is looking at me; He was dressed differently; And I thought of the Navy and the submarine, and I thought the men that moved back were just dressed in blue denims. But this other man was dressed in a black shiny coat, with a cap on the one that kept looking back at me with those eyes. He gave me the impression (…) that he was a very capable person, and there can be no nonsense here. We have business to attend to.

One person looks friendly to me. He's friendly-looking. And he's looking at me. . . over his right shoulder. And he's smiling. [His face] was round. (Pauses for a moment, then:) l think of - l think of a red-headed Irishman.

And the evil face on the - (He starts to say "leader.") He looks like a German Nazi. He had a black scarf around his neck, dangling over his left shoulder; His eyes were slanted; But not like a Chinese; [awestruck] His eyes. I've never seen eyes like that before; this one with the black, black shiny jacket.</I>

[Barney sketches the leader]

"<I>They're men! All with dark jackets. Always the eyes are there. The eyes are telling me, "Don't be afraid."; I thought of a Navy pea jacket, just before I closed my eyes; I didn't think of the man in the sky in the machine that I saw. I just saw these eyes, and I closed mine. (His voice becomes rather awed each time he mentions the eyes).

I had seen figures looking down at me, in what I thought was a smile; It was more of a twinkling or a recognizing an eye as being a part of the smile; I just can't recall any mouth.

I thought it was the man I saw looking down at me, and I was looking back at him. And I thought it was him. And he told me that I should be calm and that I should not be afraid. And that no harm would come to me. And that I would be left alone to go on my way. And that I would forget everything, and I would never remember it again.</I>"

BETTY "<I>I was afraid when I saw the men in the road; there were these men standing in the highway; I couldn't get a good look at them; [Barney] stopped the car, and these men started to come up to the car. They separated. They came in two groups; DOCTOR They look like ordinary American men? BETTY No. They're different somehow; I think they were all dressed alike, but I couldn't see</I>"

2. POST HYPNOSIS AND SOME TAPE PLAYBACK SESSIONS BARNEY "<I>The men had rather odd-shaped heads, with a large cranium, diminishing in size as it got toward the chin. And the eyes continued around to the sides of their heads, so that it appeared that they could see several degrees beyond the lateral extent of our vision. This was startling to me. And something that I remembered, after listening to the tapes, is the mouth itself. I could not describe the mouth before, and I drew the picture without including the mouth. But it was much like when you draw one horizontal line with a short perpendicular line on each end. This horizontal line would represent the lips without the muscle that we have. And it would part slightly as they made this mumumumming sound. The texture of the skin, as I remember it from this quick glance, was grayish, almost metallic looking. I didn't notice any hair-or headgear for that matter. Also, I didn't notice any proboscis, there just seemed to be two slits that represented the nostrils.

"Betty and I went to hear a lecture one time by Dr. Carleton S. Coon (…) this group of Indians, who lived in an extremely cold atmosphere high in the mountains where there was little oxygen, bore a considerably close resemblance to what I'm trying to describe. (…) They had Oriental sort of eyes, but the eye socket gave an appearance of being much larger than what it was, because nature had developed a roll of fat around the eye and also around the mouth. So it looked as if the mouth had almost no opening and as if they had practically no nose. They were quite similar, in a general way, to the men I'm trying to describe</I> (262).

BETTY "<I>In a sense, they looked like mongoloids, because I was comparing them with a case I had been working with, a specific mongoloid child this sort of round face and broad forehead, along with a certain type of coarseness. The surface of their skin seemed to be a bluish gray, but probably whiter than that. Their eyes moved, and they had pupils. Somehow, I had the feeling they were more like cats' eyes. And I couldn't remember any buttons or zippers-but then I really didn't want to remember. (…) And I had this impression that the leader seemed to look differently from the others, but again I might have been distorting on this. Their bodies seemed to be a little out of proportion, with a bigger chest cavity, broader chest.</I>" (266)

3. May 30, nearly two months after the playbacks of the tapes began BETTY "<I>their skin and mine were different; In color; The leader and the examiner were more alike; They looked taller than the crew members; and their skin was of a different color; I keep thinking that the crew members are Oriental, Asiatic. Only they were not as - they're short; the leader and the examiner are taller. They're about as tall as I am; The crew members were shorter; I'd say they were not-uh-five feet. I think the leader is about as tall as I am.</I> (272-274)

4. BETTY’S DREAM "<I>I note their physical appearance. Most of the men are my height, although I cannot remember the height of the heels on my shoes. None is as tall as Barney, so I would judge them to be 5 ' to 5' 4". Their chests arc larger than ours; their noses were larger (longer) than the average size although I have seen people with noses like theirs - like Jimmy Durante's. Their complexions were of a gray tone; like a gray paint with a black base; their lips were of a bluish tint. Hair and eyes were very dark, possibly black.

The men were all dressed alike, presumably in uniform, of a light navy blue color with a gray shade in it. They wore trousers and short jackets, that gave the appearance of zippered sports jackets, but I am not aware of zippers or buttons for closing. Shoes were a low, slip-on style, resembling a boot. I cannot remember any jewellery, or insignia. They were all wearing military caps, similar to Air Force, but not so broad on the top. They were very human in their appearance, not frightening. They seemed to be very relaxed, friendly in a professional way (business-like). There was no haste, no waste of time.</I>” (298-289)

ETA ...and don't forget, we are talking about when grey aliens entered <I>popular</I> culture, not sectional interest groups.

Oh, and LuckyLouie, I apologise. I was not ignoring your comments about secondary sources. It is just someone has to do the research to verify those secondary sources so that you can <I>then</I> rely on them for encyclopaedic purposes. I am a researcher and I am contending that the secondary sources you seem to be relying on are themselves unreliable. Tesldact Smih (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

ETA (again, been busy, and not paying full attention) sorry: So yes, sorry again LuckyLouie, I also missed your “this”… Well yes, but it did not add to the grey alien story, that’s why I removed it and did not clean it up. But sure, CSI and the pseudosceptics. It’s all part of the big picture. Now, you want evidence for all those statements? Sure. Not a problem. However, if you want to have that conversation, then here is not the place to do it (grey aliens remember). How about my talk page. Happy to have that conversation with you there. Not a problem.


 * The question in this post title is, "Can anyone find grey aliens in popular culture befoire 1987?" Sure, see here in the 1975 TV movie The UFO Incident about the Hill case. There must be an old publication out there that explains why the production chose that design. Maybe in the Internet Archive. Hard to imagine skeptic Philip J. Klass wouldn't have researched this topic and wrote about it in one of his newsletters or books. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tesldact Smih, if your belief is that you must dismiss reliable secondary sources in favor of your own primary-source research, then I don't have much hope for any of your draft being adopted or you becoming a productive editor. Have you read our editorial policies, as has been suggested? Re "pseudosceptics", I've heard that argument from fringe advocates many times in many forms, so don't need to hear it again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec), as editors, our role is to summarize what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about a topic. Let’s concede Bader's general point (because it is a general historical fact that the US did shift to greys before anyone else) while ignoring his ridiculous causal attribution. We then need to find a cause. is going right back into WP:OR territory.Have you considered contributing to Fandom wiki instead? Schazjmd   (talk)  13:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

First, the Grey Alien article has no idea when grey aliens entered popular culture. My contention is that 1987, Strieber and Lear marked the beginning of the grey alien’s rise into popular culture. Before that date, yes, you may find descriptions or depictions of beings <I>resembling,</I> grey aliens but they were just one among the panoply of reported or depicted aliens. That is, they were not singled out as special, over and above any other alien morphology – as demonstrably did occur post-1987.

Now, to falsify that claim, all that needs to be done is to find somewhere before 1987 where someone mentions “grey aliens”. If, as you seem to be claiming, grey aliens were in popular culture before 1987, then that should be an easy task for you or anyone else to accomplish.

Can anyone find grey aliens in popular culture before 1987? So far, no.

While you ignore my points above, it is interesting you point to the 1961 Hills case again – this time the movie. I gather then you concede my point about the Hill’s descriptions of their aliens - and following from that, anyone picking grey aliens out of those descriptions would not only be guilty of cherry-picking the evidence, but also of wilfully misleading people? That goes to the heart of the reliability of your sources. If they are willing to do that, then how can we consider them to be reliable?

As for the movie, we don’t need any studio notes about production design because we know Barney Hill drew an alien in waking memory and that alien is colourfully depicted on the front cover of Fuller’s (1966) Interrupted Journey [see here]. The film then took that image, coupled it with the dark uniform and the Hill’s description of skin colour and viola, the film alien emerges.

However, is your suggestion that TV alien was any more or less popular than the aliens depicted in any of the other film or TV productions of the time, or that preceded it (or even followed)? I don’t think you can successfully uphold that claim. In fact, in the face of the panoply of aliens in popular culture that surrounded the Hill’s alien in that specific TV production, to uphold your claim, you would need to provide concrete evidence to support it. Do you have any? Otherwise, we are entitled to dismiss your claim as unfounded.

Finally, are you contending that Wikipedia should maintains false information on its web pages (for a moment longer than it is discovered) merely because “secondary sources” repeat that false information? Surely that is not your position? It cannot be Wikipedia policy to tolerate false information can it?

And I do not pretend to be a Wikipedia editor, that is all your expertise. I am new here, I can supply the accurate information, and as you seem to be experienced editors, perhaps we can work collaboratively – between my research skills and your encyclopaedic skills, we should be able to knock an article together in no time.Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , your comments in this thread more resemble a UFO forum where devotees can argue the fine points of differing theories than the talk page for an encyclopedia article. I don't think you've read WP:OR; if you have, you have failed to integrate it into your editing approach. You might find the essay, Verifiability, not truth, enlightening. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, the grey alien page in Wikipedia is promulgating misinformation – fake news in other words. I am merely demonstrating how and why that is the case and proposing a way to overcome those difficulties.

If you are unwilling to take advantage of my research expertise to improve the Grey Alien article, then perhaps you are in the wrong place. This is a talk page discussing the grey alien article and what might be wrong with it and what might be done to improve it. If you are unwilling to participate in that exercise in good faith, instead to attempt to block meaningful discussion by hiding behind technicalities, then perhaps your time might be better spent on other projects?

As for “Verifiability, not truth” …well, that kinda says it all really – one does not even have to read beyond the title to understand the fallacy in that approach.

But let's not quibble, can you point to anything that I am claiming that is not verifiable (according to WP policy)? I have provided extensive reliable secondary sources… just because you personally do not believe them, does not make them any less reliable – they are demonstrably reliable. Alternatively, I am continuing to demonstrate how the sources you are relying on are <I>unreliable</I>… surely you cannot continue to ignore that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesldact Smih (talk • contribs)
 * Recommended reading for new editors: WP:SIGNATURE, WP:WALLOFTEXT. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tesldact Smih, it’s been patiently explained to you again and again what WP:OR and other relevant policies are. Even if we wanted to take advantage of your “research expertise” we couldn’t. And Wikipedia will likely not revise its policies to suit you. So, I’m sorry, if you’d like to work within the encyclopedia’s policies and guidelines, we can continue. If not, we’re pretty much done here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As for “Verifiability, not truth” [...] one does not even have to read beyond the title to understand the fallacy in that approach. That statement defines both your desired content and your approach, Tesldact Smih, as being unsuitable for Wikipedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in reply.


 * Thank you LuckyLouie. Yes, naturally I do wish to work within WP guidelines and I do understand the article I constructed does not follow those guidelines. My expertise is in research, not WP article construction.


 * You have expressed your regrets in prompting me to construct an article and I can appreciate why. I also understand that there is no way my article as it stands could be considered by WP as a replacement article for the current article. However, two points need to be made. The current article is deficient in numerous ways, including being in breach of the same guidelines you have helpfully highlighted for me. Change in one form or another is needed.


 * The second point concerns what form that change might take. As you realise, I could have easily continued on as I started, using reliable sources to take the current article apart piece by piece, until there would be little left to speak of. So perhaps I should return to that methodology?


 * Not destructively, but constructively, providing reliably sourced information, presented according to WP guidelines, that might improve any existing information, or replace unreliable information, with each section I approach in turn? Would that an easier path to follow? That approach may also be more manageable in terms of reliable sourcing and information management.


 * A quick example: The article begins <I>”Grey aliens, also referred to as Zeta Reticulans, Roswell Greys, or Grays..."</I>


 * Now, being an encyclopedia, information about who refers to grey aliens as “Zeta Reticulans”, etc. would be an interesting addition to the article. Yet nowhere in the article is that information provided. <I>Zeta Reticulans</I> for example, who first coined that term for grey aliens (or drew that association)? We know it was Bob Lazar, in 1989.


 * Then the <I>”UFO lore”</I> referred to in the White article is actually that constructed around the 1961 Betty and Barney Hill alien contact case. That lore has it that the Hills saw, described or spoke about “grey aliens”. That is clearly a “lore” and not based on any reliably sourced information. In fact I think I have demonstrated that point in previous sections above, but I could certainly recap if required.


 * Anyway, thank you again LuckyLouie for keeping things on the straight and narrow, shall we proceed from this point? About the Zeta Reticulans?
 * Bottom line: it seems you are still arguing that the secondary sources cited (Dunning, et al) are wrong and your original research based on primary sourcing should take prominence instead (and within none of the sources you provided could I find explicit naming of Lazar as the originator of the term in relation to grey aliens). But even if we agreed with you, editorial policy prevents us from making the changes you are advocating. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ummm... You mean this guy?<I>”One of the primary goals of Skepticism (with a capital S) is to protect people against fraud. Brian Dunning was convicted of doing the very thing he was allegedly committed to fighting against.”</I>  You are defending a convicted fraudster as your reliable source? Please tell me you are not being serious?Tesldact Smih (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * According to his WP article, Dunning denies the charges are valid, (and...ahem...Lazar...) but that's not really relevant here. If you want to exclude Brian Dunning from being a RS on Wikipedia, the forum you want is WP:RSN, where a WP:CONSENSUS of editorial opinion on the question can be determined. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunning plead guilty and was convicted of felony wire fraud. Dunning is a self-admitted and convicted fraudster. What more evidence of unreliability do you require?

…and you want me to make an appeal to WP about the matter? Are you somehow incapable or otherwise incapacitated for some reason? I am a little concerned that you are not focussed on the task before you LuckyLouie - particularly when I find myself having to explain the difference between the use of Dunning and Lazar to you…

It cannot be denied that Lazar has made the claims about Area 51, grey aliens and Zeta Reticulii that he has done, his claims are a matter of public knowledge. The truth of Lazar’s claims does not matter here because it is the <I>fact</I> that Lazar <I>made</I> those claims that is being reported - nothing else. That is a simple, verifiable fact.

You however seem to want to rely on Dunning’s opinions. Dunning plead guilty to fraud. Dunning was convicted of fraud. Dunning’s opinions are potentially fraudulent.

Please tell me you can see the difference there…

...and what is it to you anyway? Why are you fixated on defending a convicted felon? What is your interest in this matter..?

ETA: And if Dunning is so reliable, then you will be able to easily replace him with another source - and if not - then he is on his own and automatically fails WP as reliable source. Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The connection between Hill's "star map" and Zeta Reticuli was made by Marjorie Fish (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), according to this paper, "thus the myth of the Zeta Riticuli (Zetas, for short) was born". Schazjmd   (talk)  22:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Tesldact Smih, WP:NPA. If you want to deprecate secondary sources in favor of your own research, you probably won’t find much satisfaction on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia editors work by WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:RSN is one option for you to pursue gaining consensus to throw out Dunning and any other sources you disagree with. You certainly don’t have to take advantage of it if you don’t want to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I apologise LuckyLouie. You are right. It was uncharitable of me. Your knowledge is obviously extensive and invaluable and I would be extremely unwise to ignore anything you have to say. Sorry.


 * Schazjmd . Marjorie Fish published her Zeta Reticulii interpretation of Betty Hill’s star map in 1974 in Astronomy Magazine. That was essentially the first Betty Hill knew about it. Betty was pleased however that someone had located her aliens and often thereafter referred to them as “Zeta Reticulans” (not “Zeta’s”). Critically however, there was no concurrent association with “grey aliens”. That came later when Leer and Lazar emerged in 1987 and went global in 1989 with Lazar’s grey alien association to Zeta Reticulli. That was the first time that pairing had been made in popular culture (1989).


 * ETA: Your reference Flaherty states in his abstact: <I>“Whereas the ETs of 1950s-style ET-contactee myth promised salvation from nuclear war, the ETs of the current hybridization myth need us as much as we need them.”</I>


 * But the Contactee Movement has nothing to do with ufology (the study of the UFO phenomenon) and everything to do with a bunch of wannabe cult leaders taking advantage of a cultural realisation (arriving between 1950 and 1952) that UFOs just might be alien spacecraft. Indeed L. Ron Hubbard was arguably the most successful of them all in taking advantage (Scientology was born of the Contactee Movement). However, can I suggest you read my article here - it will answer many of the questions you have in this area.


 * That Flaherty seems to mistake the Contactee Movement for ufology automatically disqualifies him as a reliable source. The two things are quite separate and distinct from each other. Ufologists were critical of the Contactee Movement from its inception. But read my article, all the information and the information sources are provided for you there. Tesldact Smih (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Examples in popular culture before 1987: Nov 1976 | Oct 20, 1975 | Oct 26, 1966 | Apr 1967 | Jul 1967 | And this 1951 precursor. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder, WP:SCHOLARSHIP is part of our core WP:RS policy. Flaherty is, for Wikipedia’s purposes, a perfectly reliable source, published by reputable universities and routinely cited by academics . - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That publicity still for The UFO Incident reveals that even the best actors can have a difficult time hiding the fact that they are trying not to laugh. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Can I please ask people read my article before commenting. For example, 5Q5, in doing that you will realise why presenting those images has no force against my argument. Those aliens you point to were simply considered just one in a panoply of humanoid and other alien species discussed in ufology and presented in film and on TV.


 * For example <I>”Patrick Huyghe in his book The Field Guide to Extraterrestrials, (Avon Books, 1996) developed a classification table and divided these undescribed species into Classes, Types and Variants. The Classes are Humanoid, Animalian, Robotic and Exotic. Each Class has a Type and the Humanoids are classified … with 6 variants, Short Grey with 3 variants, Short Non-Grey with 8 variants, Giant with 4 variants and Nonclassic with 4 variants. Animalians are classified into Hairy Mammalian with 5 variants, Reptilian with 3 variants, Amphibian with 2 variants, Insectoid with 2 variants and Avian with 1 variant. Robotics are classified into Metallic with 3 variants and Fleshy with 4 variants. Exotics are classified as Physical and Apparitional and both have 2 variants.”</I>


 * Another example, in the Outer Limits TV series, there were 30 odd different species of alien presented over the life of the series, only one of which in any way resembled a grey alien (but not really). But the UFO-lore folk single that out and say look, a grey alien in popular culture. But I could equally point to any of the 29 others and (equally falsely) claim the same.


 * It was only after 1989 did the grey alien begin to rise above that panoply to become culturally iconic, just as Little Green Men from Mars had preceded them as pop-cultural icons. Put it this way: If you and I were watching any of those TV series back in the 60s and 70s and I turned to you and said, “Oh look, it’s a grey alien.” You would have had to ask me for an explanation. The question is, when was the earliest time I could have said that to you and you would have said “Yeah, you’re right. It does look like a grey alien.”


 * My contention is that happened after 1989 when Lazar’s claims about Area 51, grey aliens and Zeta Reticuli sensationally went global after being broadcast on KLAS-TV news.
 * ETA: (Oh, nearly forgot... and this... Shall I argue that is where the idea of the grey alien genital and alien probe meme originated?)
 * Tesldact Smih (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the proposed article by editor Tesldact Smih and I would not be able to vote to support replacing the current Grey alien article with it. The current article has been in the process of development for 18 years with contributions from hundreds of editors (guesstimate). But the current article does have a problem deciding what its focus is. The intro suggests Grey aliens (large head and eyes, slender body) exist in real-life UFO cases, but then the article almost immediately goes into fictional popular culture examples. I would support the Pop culture section being moved to the bottom of the article so that the skeptical material in other sections is moved up closer to respond to the into. I would support removing the two paragraphs promoting ufologist Jimmy Guieu. They seem to be implying that in 1988 he coined the term "the greys" by way of "the little greys." If that is what is being claimed, then flat out say so and any interested editors can research and challenge it if it is not first use. If the current article is supposed to refer to a particular physical type of Grey alien (large head and eyes, slender body), well, did you know that there is an image available on Commons? It is currently being used on many other language versions of the Grey alien article:. Maybe it should be added to the English article and that could resolve a lot of this. Click on some of the foreign-language articles to see how it is being used. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Gallery of Commons Grey alien images here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gray_aliens. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * First, a general point. If other editors want to express their opinions, can I please ask that they not only read my article, but familiarise themselves with the content of the debate on this talk page <I>before</I> commenting. I am no longer asking for my article to replace the existing article. As LuckyLouie has pointed out, it does not yet conform to Wikipedia guidelines. I have not submitted it for publication. I have merely asked for some feedback on it, so that I can get an idea of how and why it does not conform to WP policy (I am new here remember, and I am not yet up to speed on the technical issues), so in turn I can then reconstruct my article so that it does conform to WP policy. That is all.


 * 5Q5 – Bearing that in mind, you are somewhat premature. However, I assure you, I will seek your comments should I seek to actually submit the article for publication. At the moment I am trying to come to grips with WP policy and guidelines. Thank you.


 * Second, you have ignored my reply to the debate you joined concerning when aliens emerged into popular culture. You provided a series of images from popular culture that you thought resembled grey aliens. I countered your claim by asserting that those resembling aliens were considered by popular culture of those times as just one in a panoply of alien types and morphologies. I could provide more sources to support my assertion if you somehow object to those I have already supplied. If however you do reject my sources, can you please then be specific about which and why. Sorry to have to keep saying this, but I am new here and it takes some time to familiarise ones-self with WP policy and guidelines - and I would appreciate a little leeway and a little help in doing that. Thank you.


 * Finally, you seem to be advocating against WP policy. Yes, you may tell the sceptical side of UFOs and grey aliens, but you cannot ignore or leave out the ufological side of the equation. Ufologists, no matter what you make of their beliefs, have a right to be heard, for they are of significant number, including official government representatives, have produced a serious and substantive body of scientific literature, including official government research reports, and command a majority popular cultural belief.


 * Now I do not know the exact policy on that (sorry. I am new here, something to do with ideological or political bias, ignoring the majority, ignoring reliable sources, etc.), but I am positive that there will be such a policy, as I am equally positive that you can point me to it (or them) - and would greatly appreciate if you did that. Thank you.


 * So I repeat, can anyone push grey aliens in popular culture back beyond 1987?


 * To date, no-one has presented any evidence that grey aliens were appreciated in popular culture before 1987. As I am sure most people abreast of this debate (having read my article), can appreciate, that evidence is <I>clearly</I> available post-1987 – but seemingly absent before – leading one to the inevitable conclusion that grey aliens were not appreciated in popular culture before 1987. What was happening within ufology is a parallel, but separate story, as I am sure most can appreciate.


 * (Oh, and 5Q5  - you do realise that the primary “grey alien” depicted on that WP page is a specific alien, a “Sectoid”, developed for a specific X-COM video game? I think you will find that far from being the <I>mean and slightly evil looking</I> creatures depicted on that page, the grey alien of popular culture is actually happy one. For example, does the “grey alien” emoji on social media etc. Look mean or happy..?) ...someone is going to a lot of trouble to make grey aliens a kind of bogeyman. I wonder why?

ETA: Apologies 5Q5, I am mistaken, it is not a Sectiod. I had somewhere somehow associated that image with the X-COM game and it was obviously a mistaken association. However, and talking about reliable sources, the image itself (that you linked to) does not depict the typical grey alien as depicted in or appreciated by popular culture - it is merely a single editor's individualistic and somewhat dark artistic concept. If you want to avoid accusations of bias, you should display not only the dark side, but the light as well. But as a knowledgeable WP editor, you would already know those things about reliable sources and bias, yes? I certainly do not wish to see elements of hypocrisy darken the conversation. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

, do you have a specific edit (and reliable source that supports it) that you want to suggest? Schazjmd  (talk)  01:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * People may also care to consider the following in relation to official sources:


 * <I>”Immediate Release / Establishment of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force / Aug. 14, 2020


 * On Aug. 4, 2020, Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist approved the establishment of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force (UAPTF). The Department of the Navy, under the cognizance of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, will lead the UAPTF.”</I>

...and yes Schazjmd, I do have a large number of reliably sourced edits that I can suggest. However, time is pressing so I will get back to you on that. Thanks. Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The 1967 Betty Andreasson abduction case reported the now-common description of the Greys (Grays) and was written about in the 1979 book The Andreasson Affair by Raymond E. Fowler. To editor Tesldact Smih, it would be helpful in the discussion if you would practice WP:BECONCISE in your posts on the talk page. Thanks. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 16:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sorry 5Q5, you seem to have missed my reply to you above. I will repeat the relevant section here for everyone’s convenience.


 * <I>“…you have ignored my reply to the debate you joined concerning when aliens emerged into popular culture. You provided a series of images from popular culture that you thought resembled grey aliens. I countered your claim by asserting that those resembling aliens were considered by popular culture of those times as just one in a panoply of alien types and morphologies. I could provide more sources to support my assertion if you somehow object to those I have already supplied. If however you do reject my sources, can you please then be specific about which and why.”</I>


 * In recounting a “grey alien” tale from 1979, you have not demonstrated that grey aliens were considered by popular culture to be separate and distinct from the panoply of alien types and morphologies that existed concurrently in popular culture. Point me to any author who talks about “grey aliens” prior to 1987. Bud Hopkins is the closest I have come so far, with some purporting his <I> Missing Time</I> (1981) speaks about “grey aliens” (as special over and above the panoply), but I cannot verify that claim. Perhaps you can? Tesldact Smih (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is becoming an exercise in WP:BLUDGEON. Could you please make a positive response (or two, or twenty) to excellent question: do you have a specific edit (and reliable source that supports it) that you want to suggest? By "positive response" I mean a concise, reliably-sourced edit to the article, or a specific suggestion for same here on the Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if you feel bludgeoned JoJo Anthrax, it’s certainly not my intent.


 * As for suggesting edits, I feel there is no point in doing that if they are likely to be immediately rejected. As you would have read my article here (User:Tesldact Smih/sandbox), you will likely be aware of the kinds of edits I am likely to suggest. The first of those involves providing an indication of when grey aliens first rose into popular culture. My contention is that it was in 1987 (with Strieber, Hopkins, Leer & Lazar). Most here seem to want to maintain some sort of connection with Betty and Barney Hill (1961). However, having read my article, if you then read from the beginning of this section and some previous sections on this talk page you will see where I have pointed to the erroneous nature of that connection. And that is even before mentioning the point I am debating with 5Q5.


 * So then, as you are impatient to move things along – and because it is a critical issue that needs to be resolved before I can suggest those edits - do you have any comment you would like to make on the issue? Or should just remove reference to the Hills case and replace it with the information about Strieber, Hopkins, Leer and Lazar? I would sincerely like your opinion on that proposed change. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well excuse me JoJo Anthrax, you asked me to propose an edit and I have. What more do you want? I also asked for your comments in relation to that edit. If you do not wish to engage in constructive editing in good faith, then I am sorry, but that is hardly my fault. Tesldact Smih (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , your position as stated above is that grey aliens came to prominence in popular culture in 1987 with Strieber, Hopkins, Leer & Lazar, and you would like to revise the article to represent such. Since there has never been a confirmed photograph, film, video, or body of a grey alien found dead or alive (repeat confirmed, not claimed), no one can say for certain what they factually look like. They might look like the aliens seen in the 1975 TV film The UFO Incident, a movie that was syndicated to TV markets internationally; they might look like the aliens of 1977's Close Encounters of the Third Kind (here, here, and here; they might look like the version offered by Strieber on the cover of his 1987 book Communion; or they might look like any of similar other claimed versions described by alleged abductees, such as Betty Andreasson. Pushing one point of view over others, especially in paranormal articles, is frequently cited by editors as the reason for deleting content. Until a Grey alien is actually proven to exist, it is speculation as to what they look like in detail and the article over the past 18 years has been written and revised by many editors (not me) to reflect that neutral point of view. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

5Q5 Are you arguing against the inclusion of a description of grey aliens in the article? Do you want the current section describing grey aliens deleted? Ammended? Precisely what is your edit proposal in that regard? Can you clarify please?

Personally, I would not delete the section, but would amend it to reflect that, despite your previous comments pointing to specific examples of grey aliens above, there really is no settled popular image of what a grey alien really looks like? But then, do you have any reliable sources that discuss the contention that there really is no popular concept of what a grey alien looks like?

And what has the existence or non-existence of grey aliens got to do with anything? We are discussing what popular culture apprehends grey aliens to be – and when the modern concept of a grey alien began to rise into popular consciousness. I am also not sure how your comments/proposal(?) relates to the edits I proposed – which you seem to have ignored again. I would be grateful if you could please comment directly on my proposed edits. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no objective measure of what "first rose into popular culture" means, so we rely on the sources and their claims. (Personally, I suspect Close Encounters of the Third Kind was more influential than Communion,  but our opinions and internet speculation don't belong in articles.) The article currently discusses instances/mentions of grey aliens as they appeared in various media over time. You dismiss every example as "just one in a panoply of alien types", but without a reliable source that supports that distinction other than your own forensic analysis. Your contention seems to be that there may have been aliens in popular culture and they may have been grey and they may have resembled the aliens currently called Greys, but they weren't "officially" (by some unclear arbitrary standard) Greys until 1987.Maybe there could be some progress if you used an edit request approach: for example, Change X to Y, using (reference) as the source.  Schazjmd   (talk)  00:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Schazjmd, yes, we are talking about popular culture. And there is an objective measure. My definition of when “grey aliens” first came to be recognised in popular culture would be when someone first used the term “grey” to distinguish a particular species of alien from the panoply - and having used the term, could then have reasonably expected it to be understood by another person as unmistakably referring to a particular alien species (and not any other). …and the only <I>evidence</I> for when that was, is when Leer used the term “Greys” in 1987 - and then the term went global in 1989 with Lazar (Area 51, Roswell, the “Greys” and Zeta Reticuli). But even then, it took Santilli and the Alien Autopsy hoax in 1995 to really cement the “Grey Alien” as a species into popular culture – and from that moment on the floodgates were opened…


 * Looking back before 1987 however, was there a time when popular culture apprehended the “grey” alien as a distinct species and not just another in the crowd of “aliens” (perhaps having roots in a panoply of folkloric beings mediated by mythical archetypes)?


 * Betty and Barney Hill: <I>At the time of the incident,</I> (1961), if someone had asked Betty Hill “Was your alien a grey alien?” Would Mrs Hill have known how to respond? If “grey” aliens were in popular culture in 1961, Mrs Hill would have known precisely how to respond, with a yes or a no. Now, come forward in history… at each purported historical example of a “grey” alien (those helpfully provided by 5Q5  for example), ask yourself if a person of those times, at the time, would have understood if someone had asked “Was the alien in the film you just saw (book you just read, etc.) a grey alien?”


 * Critically, the only reliable <I>evidence</I> we have for that comes in 1987. Otherwise we only have the opinions of the UFO skeptics to go by - and asking them for a balanced opinion is like asking the flat earth folk to provide a balanced assessment of the history of planet earth…


 * Remember also, we are in <I>"popular culture"</I> here, the story inside ufology (or another sectional interest group) might very well be different... and remember also, my "article", as are my beliefs, are not above changing in the face of new evidence.


 * But you do suggest a way forward and I think I may present an opportunity for a solution. Let me think on it – your suggestion is a good one - I’m sure we can satisfactorily reconcile our differences. Tesldact Smih (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , it might be helpful for you as a new editor to take a look at the Bigfoot article, another as-yet-unproven being, and how it treats the subject with a neutral-point-of-view writing style. Like "Bigfoot," "Grey alien" at this point is a general term. In Bigfoot's case, no particular alleged witness's description is treated as the most prominent one, not even in its popular culture section and pop culture main article. With regard to terminology, the scientific community, news media, and general public already use the term "the greys" as short for the proven animals (usage examples on Google) grey squirrels, grey foxes, grey wolves, grey whales, and grey seals. No one thinks grey squirrels began when someone first referred to them as "the greys" in popular culture. As for Strieber's "Communion," the IMDb-owned site Box Office Mojo says the film based on the book made only $1.9 million worldwide during its theatrical release, while Close Encounters grossed $306.8 million. That would indicate that Strieber's book had less of a pop culture influence than Spielberg's movie version of grey aliens. Close Encounters also won two Oscars, Cinematography and Sound Effects. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Bigfoot? I though the <I>Abominable Snowman</I> or the <I>Yeti</I> or even <I>Sasquatch</I> was the pop- icon… hmmm, interesting, a Google search on Bigfoot actually brings up <I>”Sasquatch”</I>” before “Bigfoot.”


 * And I really don’t understand your obsession with the reality (or not) of Grey aliens or Bigfoot. That has absolutely nothing to do with how these creatures are perceived by popular culture. But even on that, polls show a goodly proportion of the population actually <I>do</I> believe in the reality of such a creature, so that’s a rather important part of the story missing in action wouldn’t you say?


 * And far from being an exemplar of a good, neutral article, it is written almost entirely from a “skeptical” POV. For example, it does not mention some of the key players at all and it completely misses this somewhat prominent school of thought: <I>”Although it's been decades since the Patterson-Gimlin film turned a Northwest legend, Bigfoot, into a household name, the footage and stories behind it still remain fascinating 50 years later.”</I>


 * So another one of the most important parts of the Bigfoot story completely missing in action. And in my (admittedly quick and dirty) Googling of the topic – it looks like anyone who knows anything about Bigfoot seems to think so too… So no, I would not hold the Bigfoot article up as some sort of exemplar to follow. It is demonstrably biased and misses one one the most prominent, important and controversial parts of the Bigfoot story.


 * So let’s just concentrate on making the Grey alien article factual and reliable shall we?


 * I will propose a change ASAP - but I also need to ensure that we are all playing by the same rule-book on a level playing field – and to this point, given the seemingly spurious “arguments” put up by those wishing to maintain the status quo, I am not convinced that we are.


 * Oh, and sorry 5Q5, you must not have read my article or my comments above. I implore you to do so. I claim nothing about Communion (1989, the movie), my point concerns Communion (1987, the book). That is: "<I>Communion</I> topped The New York Times Adult Non-Fiction Best Seller List on May 10, May 24 and May 31, 1987 and remained on the list for 30 weeks, from March 1, 1987 to September 20, 1987.


 * It would be lovely if you could please familiarise yourself with the actual discussion we are having before commenting. That would be much appreciated by all concerned. An ignorance of what I claim or do not claim seems to be slowing progress to a crawl. Thank you in advance. Tesldact Smih (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , please stop accusing me of not having read posts on this page or being ignorant of the discussion. Grey alien is in the category of fringe articles and it has to be edited as such. Perhaps your point-of-view research material that grey aliens specifically began in 1987 would be better suited for a book, which is what many others in the UFO community have done over the years to get recognition for their ideas. Talk pages on Wikipedia are not the place for lengthy conversations and frankly I am getting tired of this. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

“Fringe”? Look at the public polling and tell me it’s fringe. Look at the articles and media and books and film that is generated around the topic… The very idea of “fringe” is ridiculous. Even the WP “fringe” article seems to point that out:

<I>“ The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.”</I>

That looks awfully like the criteria that applies to all topics. Perhaps people may have become confused? Just because something is <I>controversial</I>, does not mean it is “fringe”. “Fringe” is a subjective value judgement, whereas “controversial” is an objective assessment. I hope somebody around here can see the difference. So let's drop "fringe" for the obvious red herring it is please.

You also misunderstand what I am doing here. I do not require “recognition for my ideas”, I could not care less about that, what I am doing is first trying to ensure the Grey alien article is as historically and scientifically accurate and reliable as it can be and second, trying to gain a clear understanding of how WP actually operates in the wild. I have no particular agenda or barrow to push – I am simply concerned with the interests of scientific and historical accuracy.

Moreover, I don’t understand your objection to the 1987 idea. Certainly you have presented no evidence against it and there is much evidence for it. Your obstructionist approach (is there a "WP:" for that?) is taking up valuable time that could be spent actually editing the article.

So how about we compromise and do something like this:

The premise becomes that Pre-1987 - as you seem to contend - UFO folklorists and UFO skeptics believe grey aliens came into popular culture at an indeterminate time and that they do not seem to know when “grey” aliens were first mentioned publicly (nor ufologically) and that they do not know how to describe grey aliens (i.e., as you have argued above, that there is actually no consistent popular iconic image for grey aliens), but they do have examples that they suppose form some sort of historical precedent (perhaps beginning here in 1895 for an excellent example ), then flesh that out with other references and examples - the ones you provide above would be an excellent selection, but realistically, there are literally thousands of "grey alien" exemplars across history you could choose from in your endeavour.

Then, when the timeline arrives at 1987 we say that ufologists believe (and popular culture apprehends) that grey aliens entered popular culture in 1987, then flesh that out along the lines that I have presented in my article. It’s like having the Flat Earth Society write the preamble to an article about planetary geology, but I grit my teeth and am willing to compromise in the interests of actually getting something done here.

What do you think of that compromise approach? It seems to satisfy the UFO folklorists and skeptics because their ideas are presented up front, and it also satisfies the interests of science and history in that the 1987 date is still included in the historical timeline. What do you think? Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change false statement
The following statement in the WP Grey alien article is false:

<I>“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).”</I>

Betty Hill produced her star map from normal, waking memory. That is,

<I>“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.”</I> (p.220)

…and…

<I>“Under hypnosis, Betty Hill described a map she was shown "by the leader aboard the ship." Later, she sketched it. She said she was told that the heavy lines marked regular trade routes, and the broken lines recorded various space expeditions.”</I> (p.146.4)

However, correcting that false statement alone becomes difficult because of the following considerations which highlight other inaccuracies within the paragraph. According to Wikipedia:

<I>“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.”</I>

Marjorie Fish’s Zeta Reticuli interpretation of Betty Hill’s star map was published by Terence Dickinson in the December 1974 issue of Astronomy Magazine. That was essentially the first Betty Hill heard about Zeta Reticuli. Fuller noted that from 1965, Betty Hill was actually convinced that her alleged aliens came from the constellation of Pegasus - after the New York Times published a map of the constellation of Pegasus with the claim that the Russians detected radio signals coming from there. Mrs Hill then added the names of the stars in Pegasus, as noted by the NYT, onto her star map. (p.146.4-146.5) Meaning that between 1965 and 1974, Betty Hill cannot have referred to her aliens as “Zeta Reticulans."

Can we therefore say that prior to 1974, Mrs Hill referred to her alleged aliens as "Pegsusians"? That would be assuming too much right? However, that seems to be the logic used by Sagan to claim Mrs Hill referred to her aliens as "Zeta Reticulans". One would have to agree, that is not a sound basis for such an attibution.

Therefore the whole paragraph requires reworking. I have run out of time now, but will think of something appropriate to replace it with ASAP. In the meantime, perhaps other editors might make some suggestions? Thank you.

ETA: Actually, I just noticed. Every sentence in that paragraph prior to the final is not sourced. So Sagan may not have claimed anything about “Zeta Reticulans”. Other (unnamed) sources, then. However, I also note Sagan refers to <I>“short, grey aliens”</I>, yet the Hill’s never described their aliens in any such manner – as the Hill’s descriptions of their aliens (found near the head of the previous section) testify. So Sagan’s statement is also quite inaccurate. Tesldact Smih (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The Barney and Betty Hill article already discusses the star map so only minor changes would be expected here, since this is a general article on Grey aliens, not just the Hills' version. In my opinion there is already too much on the star map in this article and I don't think "Zeta Reticulans" and "Roswell Greys" should be in the opening sentence. But if you have an edit to propose, insert the proposed revision into this approved template so it will be indented with a green background and the references, if any, will stay with the material. Add your intro and closing comments and signature outside of the div code: <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color:#efe; margin:0 2.5%; padding:0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">PUT TEXT HERE. . Please be concise. Thanks. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you 5Q5, you are most gracious. Sorry but I have not had any time this evening. I will (hopefully) have something for you tomorrow evening. Apologies for the delay.Tesldact Smih (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 5Q5, a quick question if I may. Given you acknowledge the Grey alien article is not up to scratch and given at the same time you are attempting to have me barred from editing, am I then to assume you have abandoned the respectful collaboration I have sought from you? It seems that your attitude here and in the other place are somewhat at odds, so I think it might be kinda helpful to know where you actually stood in relation to all this, because as I have consistently pointed out, I would like to work collaboratively and in good faith with you (or any other editor) if at all possible. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In the 18 years the Grey alien article has existed I have not made a single edit to it. It is not a normal interest of mine. I was just passing through one day and noticed this discussion. I don't mind if the article stays the way it currently is, except that I hope someday other regular editors would cut some material, not add to it. My advice above on how to propose an edit was made on April 19. The Admin Noticeboard Incident posting regarding you was made on the 20th by another editor. After reading through the ANI entry, I found it to be an accurate description of the situation and I agreed. You will need to wait for the Admin's decision before attempting to edit this article again. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me 5Q5, but something you just said is puzzling me. How can one be <I>“just passing through”</I> a Grey alien article? Do you mean to say you clicked on the random article link and it gave you “Grey alien” – and then, having no interest, you decided to visit the article’s talk page and once there immediately involve yourself in the discussion to argue against me, as if you did have an interest? I don’t quite understand how that process works, particularly when your very first comment on the topic included the claim <I>“Hard to imagine skeptic Philip J. Klass wouldn't have researched this topic and wrote about it in one of his newsletters or books.”</I>

Now someone with no interest would have no idea who Klass was let alone that he had published newsletters and books - you even take the time to link to Klass’ WP page, which means, as Klass was never mentioned, alluded to or linked to in any way in the actual discussion, you had prior knowledge. Indeed, you actually find it <I>“hard to imagine”</I> Klass would not have written about the topic. Unprompted by any discussion, it seems then you knew Klass well enough, before commenting, to purport to know his mind when commenting - and the implication of that is that you consider yourself knowledgeable about Klass- who was of course an arch UFO debunker.

Can you please then tell me how your professed expert knowledge of Klass (as to profess to know someone's mind is to imply an expert knowledge) squares with the disinterested sentiment and the implied ignorance of the topic you express here? Might not a reasonable person assume that in fact you are not as disinterested in or as ignorant of the topic as you seem to imply? However, I do not like to make assumptions, I like to hear from the source before deciding anything, so can you therefore please clarify your position in that regard for me – for example, are you of the same mindset as Klass when approaching this topic? After all, given the context (particularly noting that, as you state, you agree with those who accuse me of having an agenda), then that is a reasonable clarification for me to seek from you isn’t it? Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tesldact Smih, please talk about article content and not about other Wikipedia editors. I advice simply deleting any sentence that contains a second person pronoun before you post your comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This being at FTN and ANI it's unsurprising for other people to participate and this is welcome. It's also not because they've not edited here before that they would be incompetent.  In fact, if they know about WP processes they can likely edit in most areas, since we're expected to depend on sources, not our own research or synthesis (WP:EXPERT is only an essay but relevant)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Paleo  Neonate  (and really, can you please explain WP editor naming conventions? I thought I knew it, but your name seems to be different again...), I understand what you say and I take it on board. However. I was not contending that the person in question had no knowledge, indeed quite the opposite, I was in fact demonstrating, that despite that person’s generalised claims of casual disinterest, they actually had an extensive, perhaps even an <I>expert</I> prior knowledge. The question then being, how do we, as WP editors, interpret that in light of activities in other areas? Nevertheless, I do thank you for your advice  Paleo  Neonate, because that is <I>precisely</I> the type of guidance and advice that I both require and have been asking for (Indeed, I thought Luckie Louie was actually doing quite a good job of that).


 * I would love to get back to directly discussing the article in good faith with other editors. I stated above that I believe I have a solution - and it is a genuine one. It requires a short preamble on this talk page to explain why and how that solution might work. But I mean, if you think about it, the story of grey aliens (and UFOs and "the paranormal") is in significant part the story of believers v. skeptics - the "skeptics" believe one thing, the "believers" another - and each seems to talk past the other from encampments in opposite corners, ultimately resolving nothing.


 * My approach would be to seek common ground first and foremost, before going near the potentially controversial - indeed, I am increasingly of the opinion that it would be preferable to stake out that common ground before even going near the article itself (i.e., proposing specific edits) - a process I was attempting to start with 5Q5 above (I would perhaps not recommend that process for other articles - but here it seems necessary). Trust must be built before areas of potential conflict are discussed. For example, one thing I think we can all agree on (I hope), is that the Betty and Barney Hill stuff should be succinctly summarised, perhaps to conclude with Sagan's assessment, for that is the most important, indeed primary point to note in the grey alien context - the rest being essentially window dressing around that main point, particularly as there exists a specific article that deals with it as a topic in itself and that could therefore be easily linked to - trust the reader and give them choices, if they have an interest, they will follow the link. I would love to hear your own thoughts on the matter and on my suggestions for a way forward.


 * Anyway, sincere apologies for the lengthy comment and thank you again for your advice Paleo  Neonate . Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In my experience, not talking about other Wikipedia editors is best accomplished by not talking about other Wikipedia editors. Continuing to talk about other editors with a tacked-on "I would love to get back to directly discussing the article", not so much. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (ec) Okay, I've gone through The Demon Haunted World and it's accurate to say that Sagan doesn't mention Zeta Reticuli. Instead, he says "...a map of interstellar space with the ship's route marked." That being said, Sagan's writings are based on his in-person conversations with the Hills, Dr. Simon (the hypnotherapist) and recordings of Mrs Hill's hypnosis sessions (and possibly also of Mr. Hill's, Sagan is not clear about this). Sagan is quite explicit that the existence of the map was "remembered" during hypnosis (as well as numerous other details), but makes no mention of Walter Webb or Marjorie Fish (the latter of whom is responsible for the claim that the aliens originated at Zeta 2 Reticuli). Though he did engage in an extensive debunking of their story in Cosmos, including pointing out that the map was shockingly poor evidence. Note that the overall focus of this episode was on encouraging investigation into extraterrestrial life, specifically through SETI, so it would be highly dishonest to suggest that Sagan was any kind of pseudo-skeptic when it came to this subject.
 * Sagan's sourcing, coupled with his status & reputation (Not only was he an impeccable science educator, but Sagan remained agnostic as well as skeptical of UFO claims, encouraging investigation as often as he dismissed the obvious hoaxes) makes this about the best possible source, which should be given the most weight. Compare that to John G. Fuller; a writer with no professional qualifications who wrote almost exclusively about UFOs, and to the sources used in the Barney and Betty Hill article, which I'm fairly confident both fail WP:RS standards and should be removed.
 * With all that being said (mostly arguments for the primacy of Sagan as a source here), I think a rewording is, in fact, in order. I'll make an edit later today as a proposal (I'm not able to do it right now, as I've already spent enough time researching and typing this comment). I also feel that some changes need to be made to the main article about the Hills' claim, but that's not a topic for this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sorry ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, please refer to the head of this section where irrefutable evidence is presented (drawn from the word for word tape transcripts found in Fuller) that Betty Hill drew her “star map” in waking memory. So it is demonstrably false for anyone, including Sagan, to claim that Mrs Hill drew her “star map” under hypnosis. Demonstrably, Sagan got that wrong, indicating he did not research the case in any depth before he wrote. I mean, transcripts of the Hills Hypnosis sessions are <I>the</I> go to reference in this case. And if Sagan got that wrong due to lack of basic research, what else did he get wrong? That tends to make Sagan an unreliable source, particularly when you highlight that far from being agnostic, Sagan was an active UFO skeptic (e.g. <I>Demon Haunted World</I>).


 * Further, as shown above, Fish had her Zeta Reticuli interpretation was published in Astronomy magazine in Dec 1974. Before that, between 1965 and 1974, Mrs Hill understood her aliens to have come from the constellation of Pegasus. That is also irrefutably evidenced above.


 * Now, I understand when constructing WP articles that reliable secondary sources must be cited. However, that does not mean editors must blind themselves to fact. Sagan is demonstrably in error, yet his observations are important, because they demonstrate that a large cultural group (i.e., UFO skeptics) were seeing grey aliens in the Betty and Barney Hill case as early as 1995. The question then becomes, were people seeing grey aliens in the Hills case <I>before</I> 1995 (and Ray Santili’s Alien Autopsy hoax)? I would be very interested to see if other editors can find evidence of a pre-1995 mention of grey aliens in the Hills case - or was Sagan (1995) the originator of claims of grey aliens in the Hills Case? Interesting question that.


 * ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, I believe it would be rather pointless to edit demonstrably false claims into the grey alien article because those claims will forever remain a legitimate target for removal – and legitimately so – false claims are false claims and forgive me if I am wrong, but I would assume WP would not allow demonstrably false claims to stand for a moment longer than they are discovered to be so. So perhaps ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  you might stay your editing hand moment in consideration? Or make your edits, but leave out the demonstrably false information? Tesldact Smih (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not, in any way, shape or form, "irrefutable evidence". It is a transcript created by a source who's reliability is questionable, at best, and your argument around it reads as if you don't know what the word "produced" means. Even were the transcript completely accurate, that still would not be evidence that the hypnosis sessions were not the genesis of the idea, or even that she drew the map while not hypnotized, merely that she once said she would draw the map if it came to her.
 * In addition, the map as was illustrated in the article is not even the product of Betty Hill, but a recreation of a map created by Marjorie Fish. I'm surprised someone as vested in this subject as you would seem to be unaware of that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. MjolnirPants is very good at research. Don't count on them not refuting your "irrefutable evidence"... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify an earlier statement of mine, I have not make any edits to the Grey alien article in the 18 years prior to this time. I added some sources on April 16, 2021 and April 24, 2021 (moments ago) to support gray alien descriptions related to the Hill case. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per 's analysis, I snipped the star map and the associated text. The text seems undue for an article that is about the trope concerning alien appearance, rather than their supposed origin. (Anybody from the X-Files generation knows what a "grey" is, but nobody talks about, e.g., "zetas".) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I intended to do that, but things took a turn for the hectic in my household yesterday afternoon (nothing bad, just busy). When I'm able, I intend to write up something to explain the "Zeta Reticuli" connection, though I'll make sure it's better sourced and more accurate to the sources than this. The Cosmos episode gives some info above and beyond what's in The Demon Haunted World, so I might be able to write the whole thing from Sagan. If not, well, I've a load of books about UFOs (I considered myself a Ufologist as a teen, as naive as that is), and I'm definitely a book hoarder. I recall a few more skeptical works, whose authors likely have better reputations than your typical Ufologist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. Now we are making progress. The only concern I would have with the edits so far would be that the opening sentence <I>“In 1965, newspaper reports of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction made the archetype famous.”</I> is currently in breach of WP:SOURCE and therefore requires a reliable source or removal. I have searched, but cannot find any reliable sources for this claim. However, as there seems to be a renewed interest in this article, there may be other editors who can find a reliable source, so I will add a “citation needed” template to alert potential contributors.


 * I would also caution against using Sagan as a single source. Particularly as Sagan has already been proved unreliable in the Hill's case (we may legitimately dismiss claims about the reliability of Fuller as unfounded), if Sagan is the only one making such claims, then any information supported by Sagan would be open to legitimate challenge under WP:FRINGE. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be true to say that The Hill's 1961 case was the first dramatic and well publicised alien abduction account - and for that there are numerous reliable sources.Tesldact Smih (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Particularly as Sagan has already been proved unreliable in the Hill's case That is pure delusion. There is not a single hint of truth in this statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I made the edits I mentioned earlier. I've sourced it to Sagan's book and an Astronomy Magazine article on the incident (and their original coverage of it). Here's the diff, apologies for the missing edit summary, I accidentally submitted instead of previewing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, but the statement you just edited into the article,  <I>”The association between grey aliens and Zeta Reticuli originated with the interpretation of a map drawn by Betty Hill by a schoolteacher named Marjorie Fish sometime in 1969.”</I>, is in error.


 * This is what Astronomy Magazine (2021) states about how Marjorie Fish came to her “Zeta Reticuli” interpretation. Quote: <I>“Between Aug. 1968 and Feb. 1973, she strung beads, checked data, searched and checked again.”</I>


 * Turning to Dickerson's original 1974 Astronomy magazine article (your source) for confirmation (there are public copies available, seek and ye shall find :), we find the (almost) the exact same wording. That is: <I>”Between August 1968 and February 1973, she strung beads, checked data, searched and checked again.”</I>


 * Dickerson's 1974 article goes on to say: <I>”A suspicious alignment, detected in late 1968, turned out to be almost a perfect match once new data from the detailed 1969 edition of the Catalog of Nearby Stars became available”</I>


 * It is clear however that Fish did not immediately accept that alignment as her final interpretation, for she kept right on “stringing beads” until Feb. 1973 – doing as any good scientist would do, ruling out as many of the alternatives as possible before committing to a definite conclusion – a process that obviously took some years to complete - at which time (1973) Fish passed her prospectus to Webb for comment and opinion (who received it with positive feedback and suggestions), and then on to Dickerson, who was initially skeptical but eventually published it in Dec 1974 – which was then the first anyone outside of Fish, Webb and Dickerson (and the editors of the magazine I suppose) had heard of Zeta Reticuli in relation to the Hill alien contact case.


 * All that then falsifies the statement that was just edited into the grey alien article. Fish might have considered Zeta Reticuli in 1969, but clearly, she did not accept it as an interpretation she would or could go public with. That did not occur until 1974.


 * I would ask therefore that the sentence but be amended to reflect that fact. Particularly in consideration of the fact that it has been clearly evidenced above that between 1965 and 1974, Mrs Hill believed her aliens came from the constellation of Pegasus.


 * NOTE: According to that 1974 article, Marjorie Fish was an <I>”Ohio schoolteacher, amateur astronomer and member of Mensa."</I> If Marjorie Fish is to be characterised at all, it does her a disservice to mention just one descriptor, while ignoring the rest. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of your objections to what I've said here so far have made any sense, and you're about to be topic banned from this topic in any case, so I'm not reading your latest wall of text. And please stop copying signatures when you refer to people. It's annoying as hell. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would simply ask that you to consider what I have just written because it demonstrates an error in your statement. And apologies if you find my use of your name to indicate to whom I direct my comments annoying. I have asked previously for guidance on naming conventions, perhaps you can describe them for me, or point me to the relevant WP policy? Now, can we please return to discussing the article? Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not about using someone's name, it's using their signature which is a problem. Look at the code at the start of this post when you're in 'edit mode' - that's how to ping somebody. This is described in more detail at PING. Copying their signature, however, is just confusing for everybody. If you want a policy link I'm sure I can dig one out, but please just take my word on this. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:58, 25 April 2021 (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)

ANI discussion
See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Guy. I was about to have explain to 5Q5, why I have again run out of time to concentrate on the proposed edits, but you have saved me the trouble. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * has been topic banned from editing about UFOs. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I note also that the pseudoscience-promoting sandbox mentioned in the WP:ANI report has been deleted per WP:U5. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and I manually archived the endless walls of text on this talk page (they are in the archives if anyone wants to see them). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture section
I added one source (Sagan calls the Hill incident one of the most popular, so the source was already there for it) to replace a cn tag. I'll check out the rest of it tomorrow, assuming I get the chance, so we can try to get that hat back note off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  05:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've given the section a good once over. If no-one has any objections, I intend to remove the hat note. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome back MP, and thanks for helping clean up this unfortunate mess. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been my pleasure, and I'm happy to be back, and seeing some familiar signatures still working hard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks much better now. Thanks for putting in the time and energy to improve it! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Schazjmd  (talk)  17:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ran across this in my travels: [https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=sociology_articles Bader, Chris. 1995."The UFO Contact Movement from the 1950's to the Present". Studies in Popular Culture, 17(2): 73-90]. Some solid sociological perspective on the grey alien archetype, especially in the conclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Article needs an additional photo to better represent Grey aliens
The "Grey" alien on the Communion book cover is actually pictured yellow or tan. The article could use an additional photo to generally represent the concept of a Grey alien. I added a photo template request at the top of this talk page (it's only for talk pages). Unfortunately, there aren't many good choices in the Commons Grey alien images gallery: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gray_aliens. I thought this was okay, but then I noticed the alien is green, probably green clay. Just wanted to toss this issue out there if any editor wants to nominate one of the available non-sinister-looking images. Otherwise, we wait for a new upload someday. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I might could whip up some original artwork. I'll see what I can come up with and post back here if it's worth uploading. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MPants: Original artwork would be awesome - I'm sure it will come out great! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That's what I could come up with in an hour. I'm fairly certain I could do a better job in Blender, but that will take some time to finish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As presented here in an early stage, a little too dark and sinister looking in my opinion. Found something on the Romanian version of the Grey alien article, they have an image that was debunked as a hoax here. It is a cropped photo of a prop from the 1992 CBS miniseries Intruders. I'll tell you what would be good, replace the infobox image in the Intruders article with its video poster, which has a Grey on it, then add that poster to the Grey alien article as an example of TV coverage of the topic. I haven't uploaded images to Commons in years so I'm a little rusty, but it's an idea. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 13:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It'd have to be pretty small, to justify the fair use exception on Intruders. I'm not sure we can justify fair use here, though. I'm gonna try to model a grey in Blender, which will take a few days to a week or two, but which I'm pretty sure will produce much better results, and can be lit in a variety of ways (pen & ink drawings tend to look better when they're darker, or at least mine do). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Intruders was based on a book and alleged true events, just like Communion. The Grey alien article mentions Strieber's book and the subsequent movie and includes a small photo, so as long as there is a line in the article about the Grey alien events in Intruders, which there isn't right now, and a caption describing the Grey alien in the poster, maybe fair use wouldn't be a problem. I don't know, seems odd Strieber's work gets an okay on fair use to the exclusion of others. Take as much time as you need to develop an image. I personally like this simple one if the guy was cropped out. Not sure if that's allowed though. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 16:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally like this simple one if the guy was cropped out. I aimed for some detail and a scene with my first attempt, but I could probably whip up something more illustrative in even less time than I did that. In fact, I should have thought to do something more illustrative to begin with, but it's been a while since I've edited, and I'm still getting back into the hang of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * MP, your artwork is almost ‘’too good’’, slick and magazine style. It’s definitely a “scene” with some drama and personality built into it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that, especially because it looks like shit to me, and I almost didn't upload it. But I'm working on a more illustrative version tonight (that will, ironically, take even less time than the one I posted here). I think that one will make everyone happiest, and be the best for the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

How about this one? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  02:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's fabulous - it certainly illustrates all the canonical features, although it does lack Paul's raised middle finger. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the standard galactic gesture for "Take your snarbledorf and shove it up your glompstaf!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As a test I reset it smaller at 100 pixels instead of 200. It would be easier to see details on small screens if lightened, but otherwise looks good and is in the range of grey color, as opposed to the yellow and aqua aliens currently representing Greys in the article. Thanks for your artistry skills. Please remove my template when published. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there agreement among sources that grey aliens lack genitals? Kidding. It looks good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If they don't, there's going to be a lot of disappointed people the next time they come up with a hilariously dumb idea. P.S. I lightened it a bit, so be sure to force a refresh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I advise not doing a google search on "grey alien genitals". I think I am on somebody's list now. The TRUTH is out there! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just got hold of Aliens in Popular Culture (Levy/Mendlesohn book ref'd in article), and they explicitly state no visible genitalia. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I read your request to remove the template literally seconds before I added the image, and still managed to forget. Fucking hell, man, I need to stop this "getting older" crap. It's fine, you can laugh at me. I earned it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image size
I reduced the infobox image size in the template by 15% to 0.85 per MOS:UPRIGHT. It was a bit distracting in full thumb size because of its height. It's supposed to be a small-bodied being anyway. However, having done this, I notice the reduced image only happens for signed-in users. Not signed in and for unregistered users, it is still appearing full thumb size, 220 pixels. The Template:Infobox mythical creature says do not use both the settings for "image size" (thumb) and "image-upright" (0.85), which seems to differ from what the MOS says. If you do add thumb, a box appears then around the image. Anyone experienced with this? Is the template instruction wrong? Add thumb? <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 14:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Try filling in "image size=150 px" or whatever size looks best. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If this doesn't work, I'll reduce the size. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . I set it to 150px and it tests okay signed in and not, displaying the same size. I thought about doing that originally but the MOS prefers the scaling factor as first choice in case a user has their base width setting something other than the standard thumb 220px. The problem seems to be with the Mythical creature template itself. Anyway, fixed. If anyone gives feedback in the future that 150 is too small then it can be increased a bit more. Thanks for your suggestions. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 15:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think it's perfect now. I was okay with the size previously because it's an upright image. But now, I can see the actual data in the infobox on my 1080 monitor, which I think is pretty much the standard monitor size these days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PS. In my research on this, I found out there is a non-infobox template called Template:Tall image that has a side scroll bar for extra tall images. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;"> 5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 16:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that if the image frame cut off before his crotch, people might be afraid to scroll down.
 * Which, in turn, makes my mischievous side want to make a version of this with a really big tallywhacker and occasionally swap images here.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Greys are real
The grey aliens are almost the only extraterrestrial being spotted at alien encounters on earth. They maybe our gods. Maybe the created the homo sapiens using dna. Maybe we are some sort of hybrid species of humans. (Based on my alien encounter). Kanishka Mondal from India 2409:4060:1F:478E:780D:B197:AA8D:6875 (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. If these any of these "maybes" are supported by independent, reliable secondary sources (click and read WP:RS for details), then go ahead and add the information directly to the article. If no such support is available, it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are you removing my discussions LuckyLuoi
Why are deleting my discussions, have I done something wrong. What is my mistake? 2409:4060:2E88:B889:B627:4056:B0D6:B285 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * By the look of it, because you are using the talk page in contravention of WP:NOTFORUM, to discuss the subject, not improvements to the article. You would probably be better off finding a forum page or blog to discuss these issues. Britmax (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Meda novel does not reference aliens but future humans
"The origins of the Grey alien may go back to the late 19th century. In 1891, the novel Meda: A Tale of the Future was published by Kenneth Folingsby, in which the narrator encountered small, grey-skinned aliens with balloon-shaped heads" In this novel the main character has a dream about time-traveling to the distant future of Earth. The creatures he meets there are the humans of this time. They are not aliens. In fact the hypothesis commonly found in abduction lore that the Greys are time-traveling humans from the distant future is not mentioned in this article at all. This idea helps to explain the similarities in physical structure between humans and Greys, which, as many sceptics have argued, is highly unlikely to be the result of parallel evolution. Kevinhhmcgee (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)