Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 5 January 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Paranormal List‑class

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cryptozoology List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

UFO Definition

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

Alleged extraterrestrials?

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Add extraterrestrial to the Grouping and add that creature to the list (:O) -Nima Baghaei 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Other aliens

• Andromedans
• Borg aliens

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

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

Andromedans: Battlefield Earth

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

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

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

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

Better sources

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Mothman.jpg

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

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

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

Report

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

Redirect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a content based argument. Since the "UFO phenomenon" is purely in the realm of the fantasmagorical and held to exist only by the insane and deluded, we must conform articles on the subject to a mainstream treatment of the subject. This can be done at Unidentified flying object where the minimal amount of verifiable material included here can be inserted. No arguments have been made as to why this content fork should exist, but I'm willing to listen to anyone who cares to make a content-based argument. So far, I have seen exactly one content-based argument made by Bill C who essentially seems to think that the article should be culled of unverfiable claims. This has not happened. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are the Nordics really said to have abducted people? Abduction implies that they're taking people against their will. My understanding is that Nordics are supposed to be "friendly".

Let's not start talking about common knowledge. For now, let's just focus on the things that can be referenced to good sources. Zagalejo^^^ 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:FRINGE repeatedly states that...

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

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

Cite for each one? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The grays, Hopkinsville goblin, and Flatwoods monster have all been discussed, in detail, in Skeptical Inquirer. George Adamski has an entry in the American National Biography, which discusses his claims of "space friends" and "Venusians". Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Skeptical Inquirer does not serve as a source for connecting any of these allegations to UFOs, nor does it assert that these are entities. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? All of them associate the subjects with UFOs -- one has "UFO" in the title. And if they're not described as entities, what are they? The SI articles needn't describe them as real creatures. The topic of this list is alleged entities, and the articles do assert that these aliens are alleged by someone to exist. Zagalejo^^^ 23:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

They are not "entities", they are figments of the imagination. The title is ambiguous. It is "alleged" that they are associated with UFOs, however, there is no allowance for the fact that none of the so-called "entities" exist. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alleged modifies the entire phrase "UFO-related entities". Zagalejo^^^ 23:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's really poor grammar then and is essentially a complex statement. I suggest moving the article to List of aliens and spirits believers associate with UFOs if you are trying to say that the entire phrase is being modified. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

That rationale is why we might want to cover the subject at Unidentified flying object. We can easily merge the content that is verified to that article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And that is your singular opinion. Being the person with the rationale, I would say you have misinterpreted it for the benefit of having it fit your world view. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You have made no substantive edits to the article, have not commented once on the content, and have not offered a defense of the POV-fork other than Wikilawyering. Either start being an editor or stop bothering the good people at this page, please. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Edit warring hasn't happened. We have a proposal on the table to redirect and merge the verified content into Unidentified flying object. So far, no one has put forth a counter argument based on the content of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, edit warring is what is happening. I just removed SA's tags for advert, cleanup, confusing, fansite, globalize, in-universe, introrewrite, notability, original research, peacock, primarysources, refimprove, self-published, tone and unencyclopedic. How this is an advert, or a fansite, or confusing, or self-published, or why it has multiple source tags, well, it isn't possible, it is violating WP:POINT. And it appears that others patience is close to exhausted as well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So are you admitting to edit warring? If so, maybe you should stay away from this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Another good redirect

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

I was bold and reverted. I was attempting to clean up the list last night, but had to take a break. Will you give me some more time? Zagalejo^^^ 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We could possibly merge this material with another article at a later date. But at least wait until I've done all I can with this one. Zagalejo^^^ 19:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That is backward. See WP:CFORK. I will merge your material into the appropriate article and you can fork when the parent article becomes too large. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're going to merge sloppy content into another article? Let's try to get it right first, then merge it. What happened to your 96 hour ultimatum? Not that you have the authority to issue such demands, but if you're going to do it, you should at least stick with it. Zagalejo^^^ 23:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's better to see the proper context for this content than to allow it to stick out like a sore thumb. If you want to "get it right first", then why not fix it in a sandbox? You don't seem to have a rationale for keeping the article separate, but I'm willing to listen. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough decent material already. Your argument about the Skeptical Inquirer sources boils down to a language argument, not a argument about reliability. Zagalejo^^^ 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that there's enough decent material to merge it into another article and then we can see if a CFORK is warranted as the policy says we should do. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do perform a merge, than actually merge something. Don't just turn the page into a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Redirecting such a long article has 95% of the same effect as deleting it. Therefore, redirecting without consensus is evading the Articles for Deletion process, and he's done it before. It's like saying "That isn't a sockpuppet, it's my 6-year-old son", or like "'Stupid' isn't uncivil; he's such an idiot that 'stupid' is a compliment." It avoids any rational discussion of distinguishing resisting pseudoscience from censorship. And if he weren't perceived as resisting pseudoscience, he wouldn't get special privileges, as he gets on this page. If pseudoscience wars require such extreme tactics, then let's put that into WP:FRINGE so everyone can debate it. Art LaPella (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a "long article"? Okay, I guess compared to some of the WP:DYKs it might be. But you'd know better than I, right? Is there "no consensus" for a redirect? Sure. But how would we know unless we ask? AfD doesn't determine the existence of consensus to redirect, especially not when the closure of the debate is "no consensus". The goal is to try out new ideas and see what sticks and what doesn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So ask. Don't just unilaterally redirect. Art LaPella (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

BRD says being bold is a perfectly legitimate way to ask. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD, rejection, redirect, revert, redirect is better summarized as BRBRB, which WP:BRD forbids. Art LaPella (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The AfD was closed "no consensus". I boldly tried a redirect to one article. People argued it was the wrong article. I boldly tried redirection to another article. It's BRDBRD. BRD does not forbid that, it encourages it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So replace the article with the words "Nothing important." That hasn't been specifically rejected yet. If they protest again, you could try "Nothing much important" ... Art LaPella (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

While stubbing the article is not necessarily a bad idea, stubbing with those words is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Making this suggestion seems to me to indicate that you think my redirects were also a violation of WP:POINT which is certainly a lack of good faith. I've made my case, you don't buy it you could try explaining why.

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

Your good faith is a complicated issue, although you clearly don't believe your stated rationale and further re-explanation would be counter-productive. Art LaPella (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Disruption

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

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

Intro

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

You Forgot

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

You mean the Nordics? -- OlEnglish 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New Pictures

I'm not sure artistic representations made by editors can be added to articles. Comments? --NeilN 04:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For things where we are quite sure how it looks, but an actual picture is problematic (things like cunnilingus or so), drawings are acceptable. Equally, to show the inner workings of a machine, user-created gifs and so on are perfectly acceptable. However, for things where we only have descriptions by "eyewitnesses", often wildly varying (e.g. for the "energy beings"), I don't think we should add personal interpretations (drawings) to the articles. They are a form of original research which we can do without. I am in favour of removing the images here and on all individual articles (as has already been done on the article about energy beings). Fram (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the two that were orginally there? --NeilN 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR policy does not apply to images. Abyssal (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does. If we're making unsubstantiated claims with the image, it's OR. kwami (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If the images are consistent with the published reports of the alleged aliens then they are not "original research." Abyssal (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh you guys are unbelievable, some time ago this really would get me mad, to see how the lack of common sense would rather make the quality of an article go down. Anyhow, the images I provided were consistent with the articles, which are consistent with sources. It was my intention to add some self made images that would interpret the article. This, as the pictures obviously reflect is not WHATSOEVER in any way Original Research and therefore it does not qualify as such. I noticed on the other hand, that the old pictures were put back in place. This, ironically does not seem to be seen as Original Research...see my rationale here? Some artist's interpretation are not qualified as OR but mine are?..This is so arbitrary that actually discourages me to even think on using my skills on the improvement of the quality of articles. (Not that my opinion matters anyway).

I would also like to bring the text of the WP:NOR regarding images:

I would like to invite my fellow editors to look at my drawings and compare them with the articles that they were intended to relate to. Whoever wrote : Misplaced Pages editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. used the word DRAW which is per se an artistic reflection that lies on the aesthetic aspect of the drawing and not on the research aspect of an article.

With that said, I add a gallery of the original uploads in hope that at least they will not be removed from the Discussion page. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that removing these pictures made the quality of these articles go down, far from it. Darwings are good when you provide an example of some well-known but hard to photograpg thing (like the inner workings of machines, or mechanical effects, e.g. File:Centrifugal 2.png, File:Newton Cannon.svg) But e.g. your images of enegry beings or of the Flatwoods monster were your personal interpretation of what the supposed being looked like. We don't know what the being actually looked like (it's rather hard to draw a figment of the imagination), the images provided did not really match the descriptions in the article (and I doubt any image can), and so we shouldn't have an image of it. Articles are not necessarioly worse for not having images. Fram (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think some of Camilo's images are reasonable. There's not much room for original interpretation when drawing the grey alien, Hopkinsville goblin, or Nordic alien. If you look through UFO books and websites, you'll see that the illustrations for such creatures are fairly consistent. There may be some slight variations (eg, whether or not the grey alien has a nose), but nothing significant enough to prevent us from attempting an illustration. We're dealing with archetypes here.

I do agree with what people have said about the energy being and Flatwoods monster pictures (although in the case of the Flatwoods monster, there is one specific illustration that pops up constantly, despite the varying eyewitness reports). I'm also uncertain about the little green man picture; it's my understanding that people rarely report little green men in the first place, and when they do, their descriptions aren't consistent. I don't really know much about reptilian alien sightings, so I'm not going to comment on that one. Zagalejo^^^ 08:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The images are conceptually good, but do not perfectly align with some of the more detailed reports I've encountered (pun intended :P). They would make fine additions to the articles on alien abduction related subjects with minor tweaks. Losing them would indeed lower the quality of our coverage of the subject. Accusations of original research and the arbitrarily high standards being imposed to avoid allegedly violating that policy are discouraging. By the standards used here we'd lose all of our fine paleoart. A malevolent busy-body actually tried that once and many of us at WP:DINO considered leaving on account of it. There is a policy that says something to the effect of "if following a rule makes improving Misplaced Pages harder, then ignore it." Please keep that in mind, Fram. Or, to phrase it another way "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." Abyssal (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Darwings" - sorry I had to laugh... – ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC on pictures

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the use of images in the article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was support. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Should this list and its associated articles have user-created images for all, some or none of the beings? Fram (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is a content dispute whether this list and the linked articles should have user-made images or not, or perhaps some of them only. An example of the images can be found in the above section, or in the history of the page. While it is clear that user created images are not disallowed in general, there is disagreement about the correctness vs. original research factor (personal interpretation) of (some of) these pictures.

My position is that these articles and this list are better without these pictures, that they don't improve the overall quality and don't help the reader by imposing one particular view of these uncertain beings, like an "energy being", instead of letting the text speak for itself, which gives the reader a better impression of the uncertainty surrounding these beings (to put it mildly). If there is little to no agreement (and no evidence at all, unlike with dinosaurs and so on) about the look of beings, then we shouldn't give them a look, an image anyway. Fram (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree - user created images on such a subject are inevitably original research. But I'd be surprised if there isn't something that can be used. I've just looked at Jesus, who although a historical figure we don't really know what he looked like. The article contains many pictures, primarily of artistic interpretations from outside wikipedia. As long as they are properly labelled a similar approach could be used here. JohnBlackburne (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jesus is a good counter-example as the images used are of themselves notable (for example a famous 6th century mosaic and a famous 17th century oil painting). Someone's amateur drawing of a Grey does little to illuminate this list as it is not definitive (in the sense of an accurate drawing for identification of a species of fish might be), notable or a notable representation of alleged aliens in general and so there is no reasonable justification for inclusion. Perhaps a notable free image could be found, for example photos of notable convention promotions.—Ash (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• My reference to Jesus was to an article where images of the subject, although he is a historical figure, are all works of the imagination. That some of the images may be notable is not important. Images need not be notable in themselves. It will be harder to find images for this article than that one, but aliens have appeared in fiction for most of the last fifty years, so there should be some usable sources. JohnBlackburne (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've had a look and found two images on Commons along the lines I was thinking, and although they're not direct replacements for the ones that were there they deal much better with concerns under WP:NOR, so I've put them in and removed the problematic images. They were the only ones I found that I thought appropriate, but I'm sure there are more out there. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm OK with the Roswell statue, but not the green alien toy. As I said above, "little green men" rarely figure at all in real-world alien reports, and when they do, the people's descriptions tend to be vague or inconsistent. "Little green men" probably shouldn't be in this list at all, since it's more of a pop culture construct than something people would actually report seeing. (And before someone says something, it's irrelevant whether anyone actually sees any of the beings in this list. Our purpose with this article is merely to describe what kinds of claims are being made.) Zagalejo^^^ 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• They were all that I could find on Commons, after various searches and looking through categories. I don't know that the proportion of sightings is important: the Little green men article does report some, other entries in this table such as Sirians have no reported sightings. But I mostly put them in to illustrate my point, i.e. that there are images that don't have WP:OR issues. If the consensus is that they are not good enough, and that no good images can be found so the article has to do without them, that's fine by me. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• It seems obvious to me that user-drawn images of supposed aliens are inherently original research - being user-drawn makes them original, doesn't it ? Plvekamp (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the policy? It explicitly states that "riginal images created by a Misplaced Pages editor are not, as a class, considered original research" And further that user generated images aren't OR unless they introduce new arguments or differ significantly from published accounts. It's amazing how you can smugly dismiss the hard, quality work of other contributors without even understanding what you're talking about. Shameful. That's not to say the images are perfect, but with minor tweaks they would make fine additions to alien abduction and CE related articles and are quite in accordance to image policy. Abyssal (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In what way are you judging quality? I would say that accuracy against contactee reports would be the ideal criteria. For example this image (right) is a quality photo but does not match any particular contactee description.—Ash (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Original images have two problems. First they are a synthesis, i.e. assembled by the editor from numerous sources. Second they suggest the contacts took place, so the information is valid and a synthesis can be made. But a NPOV is to be sceptical of the contacts even happening, which makes such images entirely speculative. JohnBlackburne (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All of Misplaced Pages's content is a "synthesis". And depicting the claims of abduction isn't in anyway implicit support for them any more than having an image of the Sistine Chapel on the article on creationism supports that idea. Abyssal (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Creation of Adam image is similar to the images used in the article on Jesus. They were made by someone, and they are at least partly works of the imagination (no-one knows what the characters looked like). In that sense they are a synthesis and original research. But this is only an issue is with editor created works, as per WP:SYN and in particular WP:OI. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Name one original argument the images introduce or conclusion drawn from a synthesis of multiples sources but not explicitly present in either. Abyssal (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would turn this around: can you point to a source on which each of the images is based, i.e. a description detailed enough in a reliable source from which drawings can be made? If an image is drawn from multiple sources then it is a synthesis. If there are no reliable sources for an image then it is original research. Read again WP:OI, which says editor created images are not original research "as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". I.e. being based on published sources is key. JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You can try to turn it around all you want to, but you're removing another editor's work, so the burden's on you to demonstrate inaccuracy or some sort of policy violation. To answer your question, though, Yes, I have a reliable source. Assuming you take pro-ETH alien abduction researchers to be reliable about the nature of the claims made by alleged abductees. Obviously their opinions about the veracity of the phenomenon is bunk, but pro-ETH sources contain the most detail of the accounts. Mainstream skeptical sources are often difficult to work with because they don't treat the phenomenon seriously enough to even bother describing it in detail, which is to their discredit. I have the transcript of the presentations given at the big MIT alien abduction symposium from the 90s, which would make an excellent resource. There is an entire chapter devoted to analyzing Greys and additional chapters on the other broad categories of alleged entities. There are as it currently stands, some inaccuracies in the images, but they are redeemable and when spruced up would be of great benefit to the article.

You seem to not be understanding the policy. WP:OR doesn't forbid a synthesis (if it did, articles could only use a single source), it forbids an original synthesis. When I challenged you to find an "original argument the images introduce or conclusion drawn from a synthesis of multiple sources but not explicitly present in either" in the images I was quoting the original image policy on syntheses almost verbatim. I notice that you still fail to demonstrate a violation. Not that it's relevant, as I have a single source that would do fine as a reference for all of the major abduction entities. Abyssal (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be we interpret the policy differently. I would say that if there is one good source for an image, e.g. a clear and detailed description I cannot see a problem with it. Similarly if there are multiple sources and they all agree. The problem arises when there are multiple fragmentary reports, or multiple contradictory reports. If the artist is picking and choosing from them, making choices about what to include or not, what source to favour, then it is original research.

And it doesn't need saying that all sources need to be reliable mainstream sources, especially given subject concerned. If an images cannot be sourced from such sources then it definitely is original research.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If the artist will be willing to modify the images, I'm willing to advise hi based on my source, which I'd cite in the image summary page. Abyssal (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK to use a picture like this, since it was drawn by someone outside of Misplaced Pages? (Assuming the source information is correct, anyway; it's not clear to me where this image originally came from.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so yes. See the Kelly–Hopkinsville encounter article for background on it. JohnBlackburne (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Images are normally beneficial in an encyclopedia article so why not have some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Support The images were created in a technical-drawing style that provided a great deal of information regarding proportionality and general appearance of the subject matter. This information could not be expressed as succinctly in text. Technical drawing is a widely-respected format for conveying such information and is used in the context of patent applications and technical manuals, among other uses. Drawings of this type are particularly useful when difficulty exists in generating images in any other manner, as is obviously the case here. I do not understand the reluctance to include these obviously useful drawings. Wikigratia (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Because they are not an adequate, correct, uncontroversial representation of what these beings are supposed to look like? I don't believe they are useful, I believe they are imposing one interpretation of the vague and contradictory descriptions of these beings as the correct one. Fram (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do detail how these images are asserting the correctness of a specific interpretation rather than presenting an "archetypal" version of a common theme in the accounts. Abyssal (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The "archetypal" representation of the Flatwoods monster does not match what I read in the appearance section. As for the "energy beings", I don't think an "archetypal" image can be made for those at all, and I don't see how a "large huamnoid enveloped in flames" is in anyway resembling the typical energy being. The typical energy being has no form or is a shapeshifter. The image is imposing one, specific "format" or imagination of this entity. Fram (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously there can't be an "archetypal" image of the Flatwoods monster as there was only one sighting. I get your point about the energy being. I don't know anything about those. Abyssal (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously not. Images and drawings that are made by the verifiable proponents who allege the existence of these alien beings can and should be used in the article (provided we get the appropriate license). Images made by users should not since there is no way to verify whether they are accurately portraying the allegations. If a verifiable image cannot be found, then using something generated by a user is tantamount to endorsing a particular emulation over another. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not? The image summary could contain sources for details in the images (height of alleged creatures, eye size, number of fingers, etc) Abyssal (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words. No matter how much source detail is specified in a description, there will be some artistic license necessarily taken. Even a tiny little detail, like, for example, the overt musculature and limb proportions indicated in the artist's conception to the right, is up to interpretation here and it is not Misplaced Pages's job to invent a new representation for our audience. Using a sketch or a model constructed by someone else (such as the UFO museum in Roswell) is fine. Using something some Wikipedian made up is simply not okay. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I give up. You guys seem to feel very strongly about this. Abyssal (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you possibly verify alien related stuff for Chris sake? The nature of the topic is difficult to verify. The images are simple diagrams that enhance the article.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, doubting the verifiability of the images is doubting the verifiability of the article itself.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Reporting the "eyewitness accounts" is verifiable. Interpreting these accounts and turning them into a drawing (not a diagram) is inserting unverifiable opinion of the editor. If we had drawings made by the eyewitness accounts (or photographs, obviously), then I would have no problem including those. These are verifiable. Remember that verifiable is not the same as true: we may then be showing the lies, hallucinations, ... of the people that made these beings notable, but that is not a problem. Fram (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion is completely flawed. First off I see positions here that regard the images as something bad only because they are made by an editor and because they are not sourced from a third party website or so-called authority on the topic at hand. We have you Fram as the most stubborn contender on the issue not focusing on the article as it could bring to the average reader but as condemning the fact that the images were uploaded by a Misplaced Pages editor. Had this image been sourced from a website or a book would they be accepted as a source? Is the problem here that the images were uploaded by a wikipedia editor or that the images really do introduce new facts? Are the images flawed so they imply that they are far from what the article tells? In my opinion, the only one that I agree that might use an artistic license in a lax sense is the image of the Energy beings since it has an anthropomorphic shape. Is the image of an Energy being such as the ones from Star Trek better suited because they are fictional widely known elements? maybe it is. But regarding the other images they remain close to what the article describes. How different is to describe something in an article and to describe it graphically? if the difference is that by using a graphic we are giving our own interpretation then isn't the written interpretation just as wrong? is different the interpretation of a Misplaced Pages editor different from an artist working for MUFON just because he works for MUFON? isn't he and the contributor interpreting a description anyway? I understand that we have to abide by the guideline of no Original Research I am a strong supporter of such guideline but in this case, the contribution (as it has been stated by several editors above) comes more as a convenient addition. I am stating this, not because it's my individual pride and goal to use this pictures in this article. If it turns out that the consensus is to not use this images I will be more than happy to agree, but I think we have an article dominated by the position of few who want to strictly abide to a guideline which is in my opinion no broken by any means versus the positions of the ones who acknowledge that this is a collaborative work after all and that the editor is doing his part to fulfill a role as an illustrator as encouraged by the Misplaced Pages project itself. Again, let me repeat, is not my goal to encourage the use of this images because I made them, but to encourage the editors to realize that 1) The images do not introduce any new ideas. 2) The topic at hand is by itself extremely difficult to source (in the graphical sense) because of the nature of it.Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your final point 2 is one of the main reasons for the objection against images. An adequate, correct illustration is impossible, so we shouldn't have one. This has nothing to do with being a collaborative effort, collaborating does not mean accepting all contributions, but judging all contributions and getting a consensus on them. As for the other images, the Flatwoods one highlights one specific interpretation of very vague and contradictory descriptions, so is not acceptable. The Nordic image is not really adding a lot, showing the same image twice, but one a bit larger than the other... The description in the text is a lot better, and much better indicates the uncertainty. This is a general comment; these images deny, remove, ignore the uncertainty, the disputed aspects of the appearance of all these beings. Fram (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, we all know your point here, let other editors reach consensus. With all due respect, you are defending this articles like if they were your offsprings . As I said, if the consensus is not to use the images so be it. But for now let us leave it to other people to reach a wise decision. You are turning this into your opinion versus mine and I don't think it should be like that.Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fram, though I would also highlight a point from nearer the start of the post he was replying to: " How different is to describe something in an article and to describe it graphically?". There is no description in the Greys article. There are a collection of vague observations: "diminutive" (how short?). "jointed differently" (but how?) "3 - 5 fingers". All qualified by weasel words like "may", "usually", "typically". At the same time some things aren't even described in the description, like the head, clothes, ornaments, technology.

So an artist has to make a lot of choices. Some obvious like the number of fingers. Some less so like what "jointed differently" means. Some entirely arbitrary like what the head looks like. While a description can be fragmentary and vague an image like this can't. So as well as drawing on the sources the article the artist will be doing original research, favouring particular sources in some cases, drawing on unpublished or at least unreliable sources in others. As WP:OR says if it's challenged and there's no reliable source it's original research.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If your rationale is correct then this image included in the Greys article is everything my images have been accused of.(by the way, that's an excellent image, I think it should remain, the other image gives an idea on the pressumed height of the beings)Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to this change where I removed that and another image from this page after finding two images on commons that did not have original research concerns. Maybe when we reach consensus here someone will look at the use of pictures like that on related pages. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah John...maybe..just maybe.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Of course not The sourcing policies apply to images just as well as text. I could probably see it in the case where a Wikipedian is verifiably a contactee, but even then it would be better to disseminate the rendering first, and let the usage be reflected in the content here only after it is in common usage. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already volunteered to cite sources for aspects of the images in their respective summaries, haven't you been following the discussion? Abyssal (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I have not been following this discussion; I got here from the RfC page. Then, as is normal for good faith comments, I read this discussion and investigated the history of the dispute before contributing. Certainly I encourage Wikipedian-generated images; this works great for representing a table as a graph or for restoring old images via well-defined procedures. However, the level of detail and amount of information necessary for a generated image to be a faithful transcription which adds nothing to the original description and makes no potentially unwarranted extrapolations is simply an impossibly high standard. Compare the visual information content of even a whole body of reports with a simple vector image of a natural scene. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support – I support the inclusion of the images in this article wholly and solely based on policy. The arguments "No OR" are clearly flawed to me. The policy states (as pointed out in the previous section on this Talk page):

Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing images publicly available for use in Misplaced Pages. Photographs, drawings and other images created by Misplaced Pages editors thus fill a needed role. Misplaced Pages editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or another free license, to illustrate articles. Original images created by a Misplaced Pages editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

The "ideas or arguments" have already been published, meeting the policy point; Camilo Sanchez merely illustrates them no better or worse than anybody else could, especially given the limitations that the above policy points out, and the fact that we're way off into the subjective in the first place given the topic of the article.

What draws me to the discussion is the fact that this article is wholly within the scope of cryptozoology/ufology/paranormal. Once an article has limited its scope in that sense, what is appropriate to the article has to be considered in that scope. These images fit in the scope, it having previously been defined and presumptively specified in other articles within the scope. I'm for including them here (just don't put them in the article "Hamlet" and claim they're Hamlet's dad the ghost 'k?).

Those editors arguing oppose, I feel, need to argue against the policy in WP:OI at that location (WP:NOR), but I don't think they will get very far. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If as you say the ideas (i.e. the descriptions on which the images are based) have been published then where? If you have a good source for a reliable description of e.g. Greys you might first use it to replace what's in that article, which is a collection of contradictory and incomplete observations which could describe all manner of creatures, including ones as different as File:GreyAlien.Roswell.jpg and File:Alienigena.jpg --JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I had used the source (the transcript from MIT's alien abduction symposium) to write a very detailed description of the "archetypal" Grey alien in its respective article, but about 90% of my contributions have been removed on spurious charges of "undue weight." My experiences editing paranormal articles have been uniformly crappy and I have little intention to relive them. I only chimed in to this discussion because I think images like those by Camilo Sanchez have a strong potential to improve Misplaced Pages's alien abduction related articles. Abyssal (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support The images look fine and there seems to be no good reason to exclude them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of images. Note that it is hard for outsiders to understand which images are being discussed since these are not linked. I am assuming it is the images in the version: . They contribute to the article in that they illustrate how the different alien types differ. As mentioned above they are technical drawings, and the ones I checked seem to be accurate to the description (besides it should be clear why there can never be 100% correct pictures of alleged alien beings). If some individual drawing is inaccurate it should be improved rather than removed. The images in later versions such as: are much worse (too detailed, not for all types, and not possible to compare among different types and vs. humans). The later in are even worse. Labongo (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• List-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• List-Class Cryptids articles
• Unknown-importance Cryptids articles
• WikiProject Cryptozoology articles