Talk:History of alien abduction claims

Icke section

This is an article on the history of alien abduction, and as far as I can tell the section on David Icke's theories has nothing to do with that history. It provides an explanation for the phenomenon, which is not the subject of this article (that's why the article lists no alternate hypotheses). I am removing it. Troodon311 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've reverted. Icke is one of the big names in UFO abduction circles, famous for his claims about "lizard men" who abduct individuals. His claims are a big part of the UFO abduction phenomenon. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You did not address my point. If you want to make a section describing the history of alien abduction theories then that fits with the article, and David Icke can certainly be included in that section. As of right now his theory is the only one expressed in an article that is not devoted to alien abduction theories. Troodon311 (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

... this is an article about alien abduction claims, specifically the history of them. I don't know what your point is if you're claiming he doesn't belong in this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging by your tone I'm speaking to a child, so I'll just say this and leave this article to you as your private sandbox. The article has 6 bolded sections in it.

Sections 1-3 are about specific alien abductions claims that are considered by some to be noteworthy in the history of the phenomenon. Sections 4 and 5 deal with specific researchers who have looked at alien abduction claims and what their opinions are.

Then we get to Section 6 and it is 100% about David Icke's theories. With the exception of a single sentence in Section 4 it is the only part of the article that expresses a theory explaining alien abduction. So Hopkins, Jacobs, and Icke are the only people of note who have formulated theories to explain alien abductions, and Icke's is so much more noteworthy/complicated than Hopkins and Jacobs' that it warrants its own section and 10.5 times as many words? Also the section makes no mention as to how Icke came to these conclusions, when both of the previous sections dealing with abduction researchers mentioned something about their method of research.

There is a way to make Icke and his theories a reasonable part of this article. That involves adding a section on the history of theories explaining alien abduction and placing his theories into that subcategory. Have fun ignoring every word that I just said ;-) Troodon311 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you've resorted to insults, I will. If you had simply explained your concerns in the first place, rather than "the section on David Icke's theories has nothing to do with that history" it would've helped. Oh, and for Icke's "methods," check the article on the man himself. He didn't research, it's all his personal belief. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

suggest move from History of alien abduction claims to History of alien abduction

The title can be 1 word shorter, the main article is Alien abduction.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, there is no history of alien abduction, only of claims of alien abduction. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The new term for Alien Abductions is EXPERENCER" Belive Dr.Duke coined this?

The new name is "Experiencer" Instead of Abductee .Thanks!Swordandshield (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So? We're not changing the article because you make an unsourced claim that someone coined a new buzz word. "Alien abduction" is the common term. Until that changes the article isn't going to change. Meters (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of alien abduction claims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717124137/http://www.cufos.org/abduct_P1.html to http://www.cufos.org/abduct_P1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As a topic in films and TV...?

Would a section on popular culture help? This must have been covered by many science fiction TV programmes and films. In the 1970's Gerry Anderson's UFO had this as a constant theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.163.101.38 (talk • contribs) 09:18, October 9, 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, "popular culture" sections wind up becoming overstuffed with fancruft, and people keep trying to shove in their favorite minor example with no references. It's just not worth it to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)