Talk:Grey alien/Archive 2

NPOV

This article has major issues with NPOV. It actively promotes a non mainstream view of this topic rather than merely reporting on it. For example, the mainstream view is not that greys are "purportedly non-fictitious." This is a fringe view and any statment to the effect that they are purportedly non-fictitious needs to make that clear. Another example is attempts to refer to the "abduction and alien contact phenomenon." The mainstream view is that abduction and alien contact are not phenomena. Rather reports of abduction and alien are the actual phenomena in the mainstream view. The article also gives undue weight to the entire topic by being excessively long and including inconsequential details, particularly in the physical description section. The POV of this article should simply be to describe Greys as they appear in conspiracy theories, popular culture, and mythology, while making it clear that these are simply the views within these settings. Locke9k (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The word purported is synonymous with reputed and alleged, so while the statement that the existence of Greys is "purportedly non-fictitious" is perhaps awkwardly worded, it is technically correct insofar as someone somewhere alleges that they exist. --Dekker451 (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

picture

why did we get rid of the picture?--Sonicobbsessed 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

okay, now lets talk about something else, I don't think the current picture in this article sutibly represents a grey, it eyes are to small, it's fat and not thin, it has too much muscular streghth detail, instead of looking week in muscular detail. I'm sure someone can find or make a picture that better resembles a grey from how long this picture has been used, i think that this is important and should be fixes asap.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And how exactly do we determine whether or not a depiction is anatomically accurate if we have no way of knowing what they actually look like, such as from an authentic body or photo? --Dekker451 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume the current picture is now a good representation? It seems to be the most authentic I have seen and fits the descriptions perfectly. I'm not surprised it is considered 'authentic'. Any idea from where it comes?

other possiblites?

if they do exist isnt it possible they could just be genetically deffected humans that have secret society under water or sumthing like that just saying if they do exist they could just be taking our genetic material so their childern could walk in our society or they could be aleins that were living on mars thousands of years ago and they are now living under water which would explain the experiance of being abducted and being told how the planet is in trouble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.61.118 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Genetically defected humans is the keyword that I've heard in a TV documentary as possible origin of the "Grey" typus.

They showed embalmed historic stillborn fetuses like the right one in this picture, but even more resembling Greys.

Unless being the result of failed interspecies reproduction, they may be just deformed humans, one of them once being the source of inspiration for an illustrator of alien stories. (In earlier times, it was common to exhibit deformed people, living or dead, in freak shows).

--Ikar.us (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Or these human-like beings we associate with the Greys live under the earth, the kind of "cave people" from an underground civilization, and the small "dwarfs" or "elvins" in fairy tales or folklore in many cultures throughout the world for thousands of years. An examplatory tale of a lost civilization under the earth was the world of Arktos in the Arctic Ocean, which may been the legendary Asgard to the Scandinavians and similar tales found in the folklore of other Arctic peoples like the Lapps (Saami) and Eskimos (Inuit). The similarity of angels, demons, dwarfs, elves, Martians & greys are too close to be entirely fictional, except it stims from the active imaginations humans possessed Scientific explanation on whether or not the Greys are real or imagined, a subclass of humans or an entirely different extraterrestrial biological entity (or EBENs) remains a mystery for the ages. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Diet

I wonder, is there any source for the "light-diet" thing? It seems to make even less sense than the rest, a photosynthetic alien would not have a whole lot of evolutionary pressure to even walk, let alone become intelligent. --Darkmusashi (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Communion book cover.jpg

The image Image:Communion book cover.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.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Communion book cover.jpg
• Image:Perfectdark3.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Startopia

It might be good to inlclude something about the use of the "Greys" in the video game Startopia under "Influence in Popular Culture"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startopia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejari (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Grey Types

There are two types of Greys that I know of. The first type is the small 3 - 4 feet tall Greys with abnormally large heads and huge almond eyes; these are the worker beings...part biological, part machine. Then there's the true Grey beings who are the 7 foot tall ones...they are the real species of Grey, who control the workers. The true Greys still have larger heads and larger eyes than humans, but not nearly as large as the worker beings head and eyes.-- 90.201.205.179 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

These are already mentioned in the article. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know but I like to feel part of the group by saying something. x] --90.201.205.164 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You could also find that a good way to fit in around here is to be bold and edit the article. :P Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

differences are sexual. female eban are now tall. male eban are now short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.85.150 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Grey

I'm new and learning how to use so please correct me if I make an error. I wanted to comment on the picture of the Grey (Gray), as reading the comments, someone asked about it. I can say the picture shows little resemblance to the actual creature, cyborg, or robot. The arms are straight with no bulging Popeye muscles. There are only four fingers, long with three joints each. There is no discernable mouth, ears or nose. There are no discernable joints, i.e., shoulders, knees, elbows, ankles. They have no resemblance to the human skeletal structure. Very few if any abductees have ever seen one walk, as they normally float. They can instantly go invisible. The head shape in the picture is very close, but the eyes are too small. Close up, the texture of the skin appears to be pliable plastic, or some sort of synthetic material. They appear frail and weak, but have a lot of strength in the arms. There are different classes of greys; these are the most commonly seen. Using a beehive as an example; these greys are the workers doing the mundane repetitive tasks This is a general description. I can/will supply greater detail if asked, especially related to their interaction with humans. Knowing in advance my comments will be taken lightly, if at all, I remain.

Morrison1993 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is not something we can add to an encyclopedia; what's needed are reliable sources, such as photographs of greys, or interviews that members of the group have done with newspapers, magazines, or other reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But that picture IS pretty ridiculous. I came here to comment and say what he posted. The article does not match the picture. It looks like something from a PlayStation game. 00:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC) ... That was me 00:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia too so like the person above please correct me if I make an error. The first comment in this section discusses the fact that "very few if any abductees have ever seen one walk, as they normally float." While I have never been abducted, I have had a few encounters with the Greys and I am more than willing to submit to a polygraph test to prove the validity of my experiences. Greys actually do walk. There really are two types of Greys and they both have a different manner of walking. The short Greys walk while keeping their arms directly still at their sides. The entire side of their body swings forward in conjunction with the foot they are stepping with as if they lack the ability to take big steps. They basically waddle when they walk. The tall Greys walk nearly identical to human beings. They swing their arms exactly like humans do when walking. Brandin Michael W (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Brandin Michael W

whose relationship with who?

Second sentence: by virtue of whose close relationship with who are Greys seen as non-existent? --Allen (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Their close relationship with ufology and other ideas widely considered pseudoscientific.Abyssal leviathin (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the wording confusing. How about, "The study of Greys is considered pseudoscientific by mainstream scientists, and they are generally dismissed as non-existent." --Allen (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like the old wording better, but clearer wording would be nice. Any other ideas?Abyssal leviathin (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How about The study of such things is considered pseudoscientific by mainstream scientists; Greys are generally dismissed as non-existent by virtue of their close relationship with these phenomena. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, it's still hard to figure out what "these phenomena" refers to (I assume it refers to other pseudoscientific phenomena). But here's another question: how do we know that that's why people don't think Greys exist? And besides, should we really say they are "generally" dismissed as non-existent? According to this poll, 25% of Americans believe aliens have visited Earth. --Allen (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible OR

The statement that the last reported Grey sighting was "Present Day" seems like Original Research to me. I mean, how do we know if a Grey alien sighting has been reported today? All Grown Up Whovian 22:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, you know what it means. Grey sightings still continue. I don't think many readers are going to take the phrase "present day" that literally! Abyssal leviathin (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be leaving anything open to interpretation. Only the facts belong here! All Grown Up Whovian 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "present day" is a figure of speech. Let it rest. I'm readding it to the article. If you come up with a better argument for it's removal, do post it. But unless you do, please don't remove it again. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Its Original Research, pure and simple. Its not worth breaking wikipedias policy for a silly two word statement that adds nothing to the article! All Grown Up Whovian 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's common knowledge, not original research. Its presence adds significant information to the article, namely that Grey sightings were not confined to the past, but continue to be reported. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But, how does anyone know exactly when the last reported sighting was? OR includes guesses and speculation. And thats exactly what that two word statement is. Also, the infobox looks a whole lot better without it. It looks likes it has all the facts ;) All Grown Up Whovian 11:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the single most recent sighting occured; "present day" is a figure of speech its not supposed to be exact! Abyssal leviathin (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But wikipedia IS supposed to be exact! Hence the OR policy. All Grown Up Whovian 11:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I think that this point is moot given that it does not satisfy wikipedia policy on fringe theories and NPOV. In particular, the article "must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." The entire caption of the photo appears to violate this doctrine, as it seems to actually claim that greys exist rather than report on the fact that there is a group of people who believe that greys exist. In particular, the mainstream view is that there was no 'last sighting', since within this view greys do not exist. Its status is not "unconfirmed"; within the mainstream view that must be represented by wikipedia policy it simply does not exist. It was not "first reported" in the authoritative sense suggested hear, there was simply a 'first claim' of its existence. Therefore I am deleting this content as being inappropriate for inclusion in wikipedia. 72.177.53.89 (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "present day" means: "of or relating to the current period of time". Anyone with a grasp of the English language knows what "present day" means. Don't use your opinion on the meaning of the phrase ...use a dictionary for crying out loud! That's what people who write real encyclopedias do. People do still report UFOs and still report having encounters with non human entities, including but not limited to "grays". You can easily find that out. Reports are made to organizations such as MUFON. Also as far as Wikipedia being "only the facts"... please. There is too much personal belief system at play here. I keep reading that the "mainstream view is that grays do not exist". Who's consensus is that anyway? No one is saying they exist. You have to know hat they are before you say they exist. The question is then "do people have these experiences?" The answer is yes. What people ARE saying is that many people DO have experiences with some kind of entity that resembles what has been named "grays". The image of the gray came from reports, not from sci-fi. And these people are from all walks of life and in many parts of the world. Does that "prove" they exist? Of course not. But saying that the "mainstream view is they don't exist" is part of your belief system, and also can't be proven. People have opinions as to what these phenomenon are, but that's just conjecture. But the fact of the matter is people see these things, and it can't be swept under the rug as sleep paralysis or metal illness. You want to just report the facts? Then really give the article a neutral POV, because currently it doesn't have one. Remember, once the "mainstream view" was that the earth was flat, was the center of the Universe, and that Gorillas were a myth. ;) DavidRavenMoon (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

honestly does anyone care that much about what Dr. Jacobs thinks

The edits of the past few days by Dark Tea have changed this article from a balanced overview of a multi-faceted cultural phenomenon into... might as well be the Dr. Jacobs fan page. Of course this is a kooky subject, so it will inevitably have a kooky article... but it looks bad to have it dominated by a single kook. And the more details that get added, the kookier he sounds. He knows so much about aliens he must have been living with them. The Jane Goodall of the Greys. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Jacobs is the only authority I could find about the subject, being that he is the only one with a Ph.D. in Ufology. It would hurt the quality of the article if it included citations from non-experts. His hypotheses seem well-thought and rational.----^DarkTea© 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Jacobs has neither lived with the Greys nor has he ever been abducted.----^DarkTea© 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to swallow my incredulity over the words "he is the only one with a Ph.D. in Ufology" and skip straight to: can we at least rewrite this for tone/quality? The oft repeated phrase "Professor of History Dr. Jacobs, with a Ph.D. in Intellectual History from the University of Wisconsin about Ufology" is somewhat farcical. we may as well rename this article "Dr Jacobs theories about Grays" as this page now treats that as undisputed fact. Palendrom (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a new article about David Michael Jacobs, so I took out the needless repetition of his credentials.-----^DarkTea© 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think much of what has been added can stay, but having a ton of tiny new sections for every comment Jacobs ever made about Greys damages the article's structure significantly. I think the Jacobs statements can be worked into other sections. Abyssal (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of his hypotheses that he made based on his research were not previously covered in any topic heading. The hypotheses regarding the frequency of Grey abuctions I worked into the section on abductions.-----^DarkTea© 03:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So he's the only "authority" in the academic field of speculating on the societal structure and interplanetary foreign policy of a group of creatures whose existence is doubtful. If we want the article to include such speculations, he's an indispensible source. But consider the other possibility: that conjecturing on the inner thoughts and motives of a probably-imaginary species is so ridiculous that all the other potential "authorities" are smart enough to stay away, and Wikipedia should be too.

Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So lets all keep Bigfoot alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, only one other person has a Ph.D. in Ufology. This makes them an authority about UFOs. I doubt that they have not made hypothesis based on evidence for the motivations of the Greys.----^DarkTea© 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline WP:Undue weight pretty much covers this. The article isn't a dumping ground for every damn thing Jacobs pulls out of his ass. Jefffire (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jacobs point of view was not given undue weight in the article. To my knowledge, there only exist two people with a Ph.D. in Ufology and Jacobs is one of them. These two people have the most credentials relevant to this subject. They are the most reliable source. Maybe the other Ph.D. disagrees with Jacobs, but having the article represent the view point of at least half of the top two experts, by having Jacobs in the article, does not qualify for being undue weight.----^DarkTea© 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your statement about "every damn thing Jacobs pulls out of his ass", you should know that Jacobs does not make hypotheses without basing them on his research. Dr. Jacobs originally believed that the Greys had benevalent intentions, but his interviews with abductees over the years strongly suggested the contrary. In fact, he has said that he would like the Greys to not be real, but the consistancy of the abduction reports forces him to believe in the more likely conclusion. He has worked for many years on the subject through interviews with abductees who recall their experience under hypnotic regression. Through the mountain of evidence he has collected through this method, he has noted patterns in the abduction experience, the Grey's stated intentions and the Grey anatomy. These patterns are documented in his books. They are hypotheses which reflect the data and should not be dismissed as baseless opinions.----^DarkTea© 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BS. If I went and got a diploma milled on some daft subject that everyone else avoided, that wouldn't mean that we could fill the whole article on it with my opinions. Jacobs opinion is neither mainstream, nor is it even notable, and you would be well advised to actually read up on Wikipedia's guidelines regarding such views WP:FRINGE. If you think otherwise, kindly file a RfC on the subject so the whole community can tell you you're wrong, rather than continuing to waste the time of other editors with this nonsense. Jefffire (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says, "However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or in non-scientific contexts" We know that Dr. Jacobs has appeared in lots of media events..."Since 1972, he has appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows including Larry King Live, shows on the Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, the national broadcast networks, the Fox News Channel, CNN, CNBC, the BBC, National Public Radio and Science Friday. His talk show appearances include Montel Williams, Joan Rivers, The Other Side, and many others. He has been on The Art Bell radio show many times. He has been on numerous news magazine shows like Current Affair, Hard Copy, and so forth."-----^DarkTea© 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've stated policy and guideline clearly enough, I feel no need to repeat myself. Jefffire (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This explains some of the stuff seen in AOL IM's service. This man has a Ph. D., surely he will be able to fix our dispute trough some hibrid users, and magic. 24.138.250.52 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Physical appearance section too long

A large portion of this article is a citation where David Michael Jacobs gives a long-winded account of the Grey alien appearance. Given his vague superficial account of their appearance, there is no reason that it needs to span four large paragraphs. Here is a condensed version I have written which I recommend we add to replace it:

"In Dr. Jacobs' account, the Greys have a uniform appearance characterized by a slender hairless featureless diminutive body which lack sex organs, flawless grey plastic-like skin, no sexual dimorphism, a large brain, a flat face which lacks browridges, absent nasal projection with slit-shaped nostrils, a lipless slit-shaped mouth, large almond-shaped uniformly black eyes and proportionately long arms."----^DarkTea© 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not merely a condensed version; it loses a lot of significant information. Since no justification has been given for the removal of content, nor can I forsee any sensible justification being forwarded, I oppose the measure. Of course, improving the wording with no loss of information would be appreciated.Abyssal (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not a reliable source, or even a particularily prominant proponent. Giving him even this length of space is undue weight. Jefffire (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is demonstrably untrue. Jacobs is the only person in the world teaching a regular course on UFOs at a major university. He is the author of some of the most influential books on the subject. His numerous media appearances have been previously documented on this talk page. He was instrumental in bringing the 1992 MIT alien abduction conference into fruition, the most significant gathering in the history of the study of the phenomenon.

Also, much of the material sourced to him is not his opinion per se, but rather an article he wrote giving a general survey of descriptions made by abductees and observations of other researchers, meaning that the source doesn't doesn't even give the weight to him at all! It was general coverage of the subject, not his personal speculation. When evaluating "weight" in an article, there is a big difference between those. Abyssal (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He does not appear to be a reliable source given that he exclusively relies on the accounts of abductees who are not reliable sources themselves. Furthermore, he makes the mistake of hypnotyzing his subjects beforehand which only confounds the truth of their accounts if there was any to begin with.----^DarkTea© 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiable information, not The Truth^TM. No one is claiming Jacobs is right about alien abductions, just that as a prominent figure representing a widely held opinion on the subject, his opinion is to be documented in the article. The article clearly spells out the fact that the mainstream scientific position is that Greys are not real, and that the paranormal perspectives are considered pseudoscience. But since this article is on an inherently pseudoscientific subject, the pseudoscientific perspective is critical to providing any information on the subject at all. The article would be a lame duck without it. Abyssal (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A main problem here is that this section references only reference 1, which is a fringe source. It gives reference one undue weight given this fact. 72.177.53.89 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I also need to disagree. The description provides information, and anyone who does not wish to read in detail may skim.SonicScrew (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

About neck

I find it curious that a neck as thin that head support. It is possible from a biomechanical point of view? The head is bigger than neck. Poor Gray ! :( --Aperaltaa (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Tasteless black picture

This picture at the bottom of the article just looks like a black square. It adds no information about the Greys to this article. I think it should be removed.----^DarkTea© 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research Grey alien picture

This picture is original research which contradicts the standard depiction of the Greys. No other Grey alien on the web has such a masculine face. The lines on the side of his head indicate his bulging jaw muscles. The shaded indentation above his eyes suggest heavy brow ridges. His jaw is large and square. Greys do not have extremely masculinized facial structures; they have feminized faces. They lack jaw muscles and have a vestigial jaw. They lack browridges. The picture should be removed because it does not reflect the standard Grey, but constitutes original research by its author.----^DarkTea© 15:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a pretty poor representation of the descriptions made by abduction-claimants, but I think it's close enough that it can stay until a better one is made. Back when I was adding info here, I had thought about stopping by Deviant Art and asking if someone would be willing to draw a better image and release it under an appropriate license. Sadly I never got the chance, but if you think that would be a good idea, then I suppose I could motivate myself to go make the request. Abyssal (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a PS, I should note that Wiki's OR policy is alot more lenient on user submitted art. But, yeah, I agree we need a new pic. Abyssal (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think its just fine. The picture should not reflect 'depictions by abductees', but rather should reflect the general depiction of 'grays' in popular culture. That is more consistent with the mainstream view as suggested by NPOV for fringe theories and pseudoscience. Locke9k (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of grey

Grey is capitalised (sometimes) in this article; sometimes not. I would suggest it shouldn't be capitalised, just in the way that human isn't in the same context. 86.152.22.234 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be that way to distinguish Grey the hypothetical aliens species from grey the color, but I definitely see where you're coming from. Abyssal (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are Greys naked?

Is there any explanation for the common depiction of Greys without clothing. This is obviously a strange fact. Apart from the use of clothing to cover genitals, which is socially important for human, it's a form to show status and rank. OK, they are sexless, but they developed some form of society. How do they show individualism? Another thing is thermal isolation of the body: Clothes are a practical solution for that purpose. I have no idea, why such advanced lifeforms, who are able to travel to earth, haven't adopted a form of covering their bodies. Any explanations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.229.11 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Grays are depicted as nude because they are frequently reported nude. They are also reported in tight body suits ala Star Trek that are usually silver gray or blue. Also, this isn't a forum for the discussion of the topic, this is a talk page meant to house discussions for improving the article. Abyssal (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick point I thought of. In all anatomy books, humans are depicted as nude, i.e. most natural form. At this point nude is the most appropriate depiction, and if cloths were commonly reported (which they are with the tight suits) then that would be a subsection of their depiction, discussing society and habits.

It will be noted that often the witnesses don't see the grays feet or other details. Other times they can't see their faces. Some grays appear to be biological robots, with several moving in unison. It is said they are telepathic, so they likely have no individuality, and are more like hive insects. The more non-mainstream UFO researches feel that the appearance of the grays is artificial, and has been implanted in people's minds. People like Jacques Vallée have postulated that these entities might not be "aliens" at all, and are in fact some other phenomena that have been experienced by humans for as long as we have been here. The phenomena has changed over time to match our development and culture. So we have to stop getting hung up on thinking these are advanced life-forms from somewhere else in the universe. They might be, but they might be something totally different. They are probably not aliens from Zeta Reticuli, or any other star system. But that doesn't mean that people are hallucinating either. There is often the element of deception in cases involving encounters with such beings. This goes back to faeries, elves, gnomes, the Djinn, etc. You really have to study the subject for more details, There are many good sources of info, Wikipedia notwithstanding. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If they are sexless, how can they hybridize with humans? Harjasusi (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing references

There are a few unsupported claims in the introduction (and possibly in the rest as well, but I haven't read that far), mainly about the evidence of Greys and the percentages. --Gratis är gott (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Most of it was very poorly written and irrelevant to the topic. Abyssal (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Picture

I agree. The picture is not typical of collaborated research. It should be changed to a thinner, more "baby-faced" image, more usual and stereotypical. SonicScrew (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Someone keeps removing the phrase "pseudoscience of" before "UFOlogy". As has been pointed out,UFOlogy does meet this definition under the criterion layed out by the arbitration committee. Furthermore, the term "UFOlogy" sounds like a science because of its "ology" suffix, which could lead uninformed readers to assume that it is an accepted science. The qualifier "pseudscience of" is thus needed for clarity and to satisfy neutral point of view as it is laid out in the guidelines for dealing with pseudoscience and fringe theories. Please stop removing it without some discussion on this page first.Locke9k (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I replaced it again last night. dougweller (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "pseudoscience" holds a negative connotation. The definition of "pseudoscience" is "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." No one who seriously studies UFOs hold any collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. People do have experiences with UFOs. And other people do study these events. It's not "pseudoscience" anymore than "science" and no one is saying that scientific method has been used, since that implies repeatability. However there have been legitimate scientist who have studied the topic of UFOs. So using the term "pseudoscience" certainly does not imply a neutral point of view. That sounds more about the bias of the person writing the article. This article starts right off with a negative POV by pointing out all the things that are likely to be causing people to experience abduction phenomena, but none of the studies that show that those things are not happening. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

the suffix '~ology' does not denote a science - just a study. c/f astrology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.6.71 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Grey's Eyes

The portion in their physical description relating to their eyes should mention that it is widely accepted by ufologists that these black "eyes" are not actually their eyes, but lenses that cover their eyes. Because they are extremely sensitive to light, and need to darken the incoming light rays. This also suggests that the grey's 'home planet' is further away from their sun, than earth is from our sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.237.108 (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The essential problem with it is that would be non neutral point of view because it implies that Greys actually exist. As you can see from wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience of fringe theories this article should make clear that the mainstream view is that greys do not in fact exist. Beliefs of UFOlogists and arguments for their existence are therefore largely placed in the appropriate section and added as appropriate to the intro. The description section should basically describe the consensus features of greys as they are depicted within culture and fiction. It should not include descriptive elements that are elements of UFOlogy beliefs only. Locke9k (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is also how I understand the situation. dougweller (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Skrit Na, AKA known to be fictional names for a probably fictional thing

Isn't this just used in the entirely fictional Animorphs series? Should it really be listed under "aka"? If so, wouldn't we have to add all the various names for them in pop culture-Asgard, Vree...--CF90 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a vehement fan of the Animorphs series in my preteen years, and I must admit that seeing the words Skrit Na above that grey alien gave me a wonderful rush of nostalgia and brought back a lot of fond memories. But as a Wikipedia editor, my first instinct upon seeing the words Skrit Na was to remove them immediately. I don't think that listing the name given to the Greys in a work of fiction is neccesary. EvaXephon (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not apropriate for the infobox. Move it to the pop culture section. Abyssal (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

fyi: close encounters vs. alien abductions

alien abductions are a kind of close encounter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.52.191 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Aspect of Phenomenon

Definitely within the fringe science category. However, the existence of such things is not completely dismissed nor can it be disproved. A much more advanced species observing or studying a primitive species might actually be reluctant to interact with it. Pretty much because we are still learning how to get along amongst each other. So it could comprehend that we are possibly hostile. That and it's interaction may interfere with the course of our society. atomicrockerdude (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Isnt it amazing that despite the fact that no other species on earth has a culture close to ours, or a sence of values lke ours that visitors from another PLANET are here to study us just like we study apes. There are no greys. Abductions are just a condition known as "old maid" before people made up this alien junk old maid was assumed to be the work of witches.

Mankind is not special, no one "out there" cares about you, there is no proof. Give it up. 121.73.246.11 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC) me

I can see how much time and effort you've invested into debunking the existence of aliens *cough cough*, but this is not the place to showcase your inept arguments.

A personal note to you, because what you said can’t be ignored, and I do realize the irony of arguing with you after what I just said… but I couldn’t help myself. The idea that since only one species on earth is an intelligent humanoid, no other planet in the universe can be host to an intelligent humanoid has some serious logical errors in it. Especially considering the many examples of convergent evolution we have on Earth, how can anyone think it is impossible for two beings on different planets to evolve into a similar form? And your comparison of our culture and values to their unknown (even in ufology) culture and values is just asinine. I mean seriously? After all that useless, illogical, waste of space you call argument you’re actually brazen enough to tell someone to give-up on the search of extraterrestrial life! You’re the one who needs to give-up. Also, I would have been nice about it if you weren't such a condescending little prick, but you are. Lack of proof is no reason to stop researching something you naive simpleton, it's the reason you continue to research! GuruJones (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The posibility of non earth life forms dwelling or residing in another location in this universe is a known fact in all our minds. The obstenant old men and the brainwashed cronies that support them who are to thick headed to publicly confess it also know in the descrete sections of there mind that there belief is popastraus. But bashing some body with the lable of naive is horrendous mistake that could back fire on you one day if you and the credentials supporting alien exsistence is proven voided.

Zeta Reticulans

redirects here, but there is currently no mention of Zeta Reticuli or of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction. So should "Zeta Reticulan" redirect to "Zeta Reticuli"? Serendi^podous 19:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a short mention. Serendi^podous 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Zetan is another term for the Greys deriving from Zeta Reticuli, although some abductee accounts described other Grey alien species originating from the Orion constellation: the star systems of Bellatrix, Betelgeuse, Rigel and the Orion nebula. Over 90 percent of all Greys in total eyewitness accounts and abduction cases are Zeta Reticulian or sub-varieties of Zetans from Orion, but 9 percent are Reptilians that carried more horific or traumatic encounters when visited by Reptilians (sometimes seen with Greys) and the remainder one percent is more intriguing to scientists: Humanoids or space humans, also known as "Nordics" or "Pleiadeans" to came from the Pleiades star cluster. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, this article is fantasy, the aliens are grey skinned oceanic beings whom have developed their technology and civilization before us. They reside in the oceans and are far superior. They are sirian and just as native as the dolphins. They have vacations on the coast beaches alot as well. I met a tribal family off the coast of north africa as tribal vacationers who even ware african dress and know of life on other worlds unconsciously as well as with their so-called machines. They come and go, and probably see us as some type of slow moving mite, lice or bacterium. They most def are a sea-shore fairing people, this, all in itself, is agreed upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.22.229 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

History section

The History section was very confused, and seemed to have been translated by Babelfish or something. I took out unreferenced sections, parts that I couldn't make sense of, and reworded what was left, hope it's considered to be an improvement. MorganaFiolett (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am new here, and I just did a little editing of this article. I didn't realize that there was so much discussion going on regarding this. The History section is something I want to come back to and work on more. It seems that the initial references to literature are presented as being an indisputable part of the timeline of what we today refer to as "Greys," when in fact these early depictions may or may not have anything to do with today's popular depiction of Greys.

The fact that the History section starts out with these old literary references to grey beings seems to imply that this old fiction is where they got started. While the mainstream point of view may say Greys are a cultural mass delusion, I don't think the reference to this old literature is treating the subject honestly; really Greys started with little green men in the 1950's, and then, partially because of the details reported by Betty and Barney Hill after their alleged abduction experience, and then through other subsequent reports of encounters and abductions, the notion of little green men was eventually supplanted with the commonly reported appearance of what we now call Greys. (And by commonly, I just mean that those who report having these experiences often report many of the same things. I do not mean to imply that abduction reports are common.)

Whether or not Greys exist is irrelevant; I simply think that if we're going to have a "history" section it should be a little more clear and paint a more balanced timeline of how the modern description ( "depiction" ) of Greys came to be. I don't think the old Wells references belong there without a qualifying statement pointing out that some people assume that must be where Greys originally came from in our collective subconscious imagination. It is, truly, nothing more than an assumption, and probably a bad one at that.

From reading some of the posts above, it almost seems like some people would like to see the article shortened to the point of being nearly useless. I think it should be adequately detailed, as long as it presents Greys in a fair and neutral way, i.e. that mainstream science does not acknowlege their existence and that this is largely regarded as a pop culture phenomenon, and that many people believe in the Greys' existence wholeheartedly but these people's opinion is not respected by the mainstream.

There is enough information on this subject that this article could comfortably be quite a bit longer, and I believe it should. If anyone wants it amputated because they're afraid it will spread misinformation, they should consider this:

If Wikipedia fails to present enough information on the subject, then people will do their research elsewhere, where they will undoubtedly get a much less balanced point of view. Watermelon Candy (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, especially the last two paragraphs at the end. I hope other editors make it that far. If you're "new here", I suggest comparing the article to historical versions of it found on the history tab, and also investigating the WikiProjects listed at the top of this page. When researching an article's history by reading the Talk page, don't forget the archives (only one archive in this case), occasionally there is a gem in there.

You might be interested in knowing that the terms "mainstream" and/or "fringe" written in a sentence on Wikipedia seems to be a good way to attract attention, not all of it positive. There's even a content guideline, WP:FRINGE (haven't read it myself). Me, I say as long as you're citing sources, go for it.

Note: my only interest in the article is two sentences in the "In science fiction" section (I'm looking for references to further "shore up" what is written there). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Watermelon Candy, but as a former major contributor to the article, it's just not worth fighting the hordes of insecure skeptics to try to put information in the article. Hell, I had to fight tooth and nail to get a substantial description of what Greys are alleged to be in the article. And then it was gradually wittled away into something sub-useless. There was an incident with one alien abduction related article (this one I think) where I explicitly put in the lead that no mainstream scientist believes it to be legit. The intro was then immediately gutted on the grounds that it gave too much credence to the pro-paranormal side. Seriously. Abyssal (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientists dont believe in aliens at all but maybe what matters more is the doc from the Canadian government that says they were told by the US intelligence agencies that aliens and ufos are considered way higher in national security than the H-bomb. The news media showed proof that the CIA edits things on here. Connecting the dots can't be that hard IMHO . Bbltype 17:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Scientists dont believe in aliens at all"... care to qualify that statement? First, it's not true, I could cite probably half a dozen scientist that not only think there is life elsewhere, but also think UFOs are a real phenomenon. And second, no one knows that these "grays" are aliens. No one knows that UFOs are space craft from some other planet. But those have been popular ideas. All we do know if that people report these experiences, and the experiences are generally very similar. But you are correct that it's a high security subject with the CIA, etc. If there is nothing to it, why all the disinformation and general ridicule of the subject? DavidRavenMoon (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the history of the greys is much older. The australien aborigines told us (and make pictures) about their "dreamtime-gods" Wondjina... See: http://www.traumzeit-legenden.de/resources/preview/234/wondjinas-hoelenzeichnung.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.149.41.165 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

SOM1-01 Special Operations Manual

This doc is totally legit and is proven legit. Somebody keeps taking it down saying its not real and someone even said it's a proven fraud, but the evidence by most experts says the opposite of that. A few disagree but that doesn't mean it should be removed it just means its controversial like it says "A controversial government document". Bbltype 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture in the article

Is the dead grey in the article real, found? Or is it just a man made model. Does anyone know anymore details about their discovery like a live picture? How is the body found? Was it found dead? Why is it dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.248 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It was released by a dude in Mexico military and says it is a real grey that died in Mexico. Nobody can prove it real, but noboday can prove it fake either. The pic shows what ppl think of when they talk about greys so it doesn't matter cuz it is a real representation. If its fake then the caption should change the pic is good tho. Bbltype 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

so why is it dead? how is it found? was the inside(the guts) of the discovered dead grey opened? what is it like? do you know? do you know any place where i can read more about this mexico military dude? 218.186.9.226 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip Schneider

As a top UFO/government conspiracy source for many of the mainstream information we have today on this subject, it seems like his article is being fairly neglected. Since he was the only man to have ever claimed to work at such levels, and to have killed two greys before he was shot by agents under dubious circumstances, I beleive he should deserve the attention of this community. His page have been abused by deleltionist admins, and I believe that the lack of additive contributions might have been an added cause for this. The page should be restored (since it was deleted on false claims), and I hope the wiki community here will help keep it alive...:) --Namaste@^? 00:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename this topic Short Greys and make a new article called Tall Greys?

There is allegedly two reported kinds of Greys. The short Greys and tall Greys. Maybe it would be a good idea to re-name this article into Short Greys (as most of the information talks about Short Greys) and a make a new article about Tall Greys.

Got some sources that distinguish between the two? Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Parallel evolution

"Their physical structure has been sometimes viewed as supporting the Panspermia theory of origins, although the "parallel evolution" required is not scientifically plausible. The "parallel evolution" concept, utilized as a plot device by Star Trek writers Gene Roddenberry and Gene Coon and referred to as "Hodgkins Law of Parallel Planet Development". However, even this fictional theory does not explain such remarkable Grey-human similarities as the facial geometry, the apparent sternal-xiphoidal process, the evident pectoral-trapezial architecture, and the number of toes per foot."

Um, no, that's balls. There is such a thing as parallel evolution, the Star Trek reference is completely unnecessary, and parallel evolution doesn't necessarily mean panspermia...

This entire article is really dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.51.38 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)