Talk:Budd Hopkins

Death announcement

Budd Hopkins' death was announced by fill-in host George Knapp on the nationally syndicated radio program, Coast to Coast AM, at about 2215 PDT on 21 August 2011. Hopkins had been suffering from cancer and had been in hospice care for three weeks prior to his passing, according to Knapp. Further details will no doubt emerge as the regular press catches up. — Quicksilver^{T @} 05:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Looking over this page and I'm not seeing the citations to prove what has been claimed. I think someone (possibly me) needs to sit down and look this entire page over and check each of these citations. My first thought is that this page has been written by a fan or someone very close to the subject. For example this sentence "By the late 1980s, Hopkins was one of the most prominent people in ufology, earning a level of mainstream attention that was nearly unprecedented for the field." Really the most prominent? According to whom? This whole area "Alien abduction" has only one citation. If anyone can supply these citations please do so. Otherwise the claims will be removed. Sgerbic (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Working on page

I'm going to be working on improving this page and adding citations. If anyone has anything to add or independent articles to reference, please comment here. Andreac (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Andreac I look forward to seeing what you come up with. This page is in sorry shape IMO and needs a neutral editor to look it over. I see someone has ignored your post here on the talk page and is making all kinds of edits to the page. They are going to be sad when they see you have overwritten his/her changes when you are finished. I would contact them, but I see they do not have a user page. Sgerbic (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this page has been quiet for a while and still needs updating. I'm actively researching Budd's work and have many articles to reference that include UFO support and criticisms, plus information about his artwork. Andreac, are you still updating the page? SojoQ (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Self-Published Articles?

I've been working to update Budd Hopkins' page. Two questions:

1) I've found some articles written by Budd Hopkins, but they appear to be self-published through his UFO Foundation: http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/BuddHopkins.htm The papers are published on other websites as well, so I've been able to obtain copies. In my opinion, the articles help in clarifying Mr. Hopkins' views on the work he did throughout the later years of his life. Is it ok to use them as references? Where does this fall in terms of Wiki's rules for self-publication?

2) Some of the references on the current page appear to be self-published by Sean Meers--unless I'm missing something (please tell me if I am). To date, I have not been able to find the references through other sources. It also appears that Mr. Meers may have worked directly with Budd Hopkins. Though the information provided by Mr. Meers is interesting and valuable, I'm wondering where this document stands in terms of self-published references and, perhaps, conflict of interest?

I'd appreciate help in sorting these questions out.--SojoQ (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to publish updates to this page, soon. My plan is to leave Mr. Meers' citations, where applicable, since I've yet to receive feedback. But I have found original sources to some of the content Mr. Meers has referenced. I will update the citations accordingly.--SojoQ (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello SojoQ, unfortunately Mr Meers' material cannot be used to add information to this page since his material comes from lindacortilecase.com, which is a self-published source and therefore may not make claims about Hopkins. The only exceptions are information that Hopkins published about himself in the two rebuttals that were also published on Meers' website; any claims about third parties (e.g. Carol Rainey) are not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:SELFPUB. Therefore I deleted all references to this website and the information based on them yesterday.

I noticed that 202.159.147.48 reinserted four references to Hopkins' two rebuttals earlier today, but they are used to make claims about a third party, namely Carol Rainey, which is not allowed per WP:SELFPUB as I explained. Therefore I will remove this info again. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Paratopia article

Rainey, Carol (15 January 2011). "The Priests of High Strangeness: co-creation of the alien abduction phenomenon". Paratopia 1 (1): 1–11. is a reliable source according to WP:SOURCE, which includes magazines. However, one cannot use it to write that the ideas expressed therein are "unsubstantiated" or "derogatory", unless the author herself has said that about her own claims (and she doesn't). These words and the phrase that she "went on to insinuate, without proof" are interpretations of the text that cannot be made with the text itself as source; they can only be leveled against Rainey's article externally by a different reliable source, and it must mention *who* thinks that Rainey's claims are "unsubstantiated" or "derogatory" or "without proof" (otherwise it violates WP:WEASEL). Therefore this text, inserted by 124.149.182.30 and restored by 202.159.147.48 after I had removed it, constitutes original research, which violates WP:NOR. Therefore I will remove this info again. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Budd Hopkins

Elizabeth Loftus' claims of identifying subtle cues were not corroborated by subsequent research. Her work constituted "original research". "Original research" is not allowed to be used on Wikipedia, whatever its source. I realise that Budd Hopkins' Wikipedia page is now being managed and puppeted by the Susan Gerbic's "Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" movement but the rules at Wikipedia specifically state that any uncorroborated "Original Research" cannot be used as a source. Elizabeth Loftus' claims about identifying subtle cues that Hopkins was leading hypnotised subjects was not proven by her, nor was it corroborated by further research. As such it falls into the category of "Original Research" which isn't accepted by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.166.64 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Loftus' published. It is not wp:OR. You are also adding a source from http://paratopia.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/paratopia-mag_vol1_1-15-11.pdf which is a self-published blog. Clearly not wp:RS. Jim1138 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I never added the paratopia link as a source. You're free to remove it because I agree with you, it is "original research".

Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.166.64 (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it was replaced by AnomieBOT. Jim1138 (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not the case that "original research" by ANYONE is banned on Wikipedia! It is unpublished OR by a Wikipedia editor that is forbidden! All research — all knowledge! — was "original research" for someone back in the day! (Knucklehead!) 216.164.62.52 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Lack of physical evidence

[1]

"Lack" does not mean there is no evidence, it means there is not enough of it, and its significance is not good enough. If I show you a pebble and claim it is evidence that I have been abducted by aliens, then voila! there is evidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)