Talk:Contactee


Abductees versus Contactees

It is generally accepted that Contactees were those who, under there own volition, claimed that they went aboard or were visited by aliens in the mid to late part of the 20th century. From reading the Wikipedia entry about Riley Martin, it sounds like he was an abductee, which is where he should be listed. Perhaps under the Notable Abductee section. Sean Donovan 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

I think the article List of contactees should be merged into this article. List of contactees is not a list at all, it mentions the names of some contacees, those few names will be goosd in the main article in a separate section, there is not need for a separate article for a few names. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than three weeks have passed, and if no objection is raised, I will do the merge tomorrow. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 70.171.87.6

> Has a Bachelors in Advanced Avionics electronics and as a abduction researcher for over 25 years, Joe Montaldo is uniquely qualified he is also a contactee his self as well as researches contactees so not sure why you would not include him on the contactee list

Which is irrelevant because this article is about contactees. As I added your talk page, "Your May 9th edits to Contactee have been reverted because they are clearly self-promotion and do not follow the COI Guideline." Unless you can explain why your edits are not self-promotion, then please leave the article as it stands. Secondly, why do you insist on adding "Joe Montaldo" under the list of contactees? He is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsdonovan (talk • contribs) 03:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Subgenius

The Church of the SubGenius has a significant contactee motif in its mythology - to wit: "Bob" was contacted / made contact with the "X-ist" aliens, and sold the planet to them. The Church thus spreads the message: "The X-ists are coming back to enslave the planet. Join the Church to ensure that you are not among the enslaved." Perhaps this is worth adding to this page?

Popefelix (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up references

I'm in the process of moving the references from academic style to Wiki style. After I did that, there was only one listed reference that had no corresponding entry in the text:

  • Christopher F. Roth, "Ufology as Anthropology: Race, Extraterrestrials, and the Occult." In E.T. Culture: Anthropology in Outerspaces, ed. by Debbora Battaglia. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2005.

I'm saving that entry here in case there's a reason to include it somewhere in the text. Serpyllum (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zigmund Adamski

The inclusion of Zigmund Adamski in the list of contactees is highly suspect. Nowhere in the reference article does he ever claim to have been a contactee (or abductee). It merely states that he disappeared one day and was later found dead.

The article goes on to say:

"One of the most famous Ufologists of all time, also called Adamski, offered his own amazing theories on the tragedy. He believed aliens from outer space abducted the Yorkshire miner by mistake."

One can only assume that the "famous Ufologist" the article is referring to is George Adamski. The only problem is that George died in 1965, fifteen years before the event. It would've been rather difficult for him to have offered an opinion on anything unless the BBC somehow learned the ineffable art of necromancy. A painfully obvious tabloid angle and not a very clever one. 216.67.36.29 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

la réparation de cette crise

bonjour monsieur le président david alors pourquoi vous avez fait envoyé ce renseignement de ce projet plant envoyé au arongement gouvernemental de koweit que arongement gouvernemental de koweit ont gagné de bon note sur leur marchés boursiers financiers pour aujourd'huit et vous vous et la France Allemagne non je crois que vous devez orienté bien application subit par koweit je crois que ces notanements est clair alors pour le 15/4/2013=+20$ est clair merci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.142.106.210 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow Derenberger

Woodrow Derenberger should be included in the list of contactees. He was contacted extensively and wrote a book about his experiences, Visitors From Lanulos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.125.214 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Persons who claim..."

Presumably one is only a real contactee if one has been contacted by aliens. Merely claiming it doesn't make it true. (See also Talk:Psychic.) Equinox ◑ 15:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material in need of citations

I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article is wrong

The people being discussed aren't contactees. They are not called contactees in reliable sources, because any source that calls them contactees is ipso facto an unreliable source. If the article title, and every mention of this name, was in scare quotes, that would make it technically correct; however, there is probably a better way. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are contactees, because contactee is the terminology universally used for those who claim to have non-abduction contact with aliens, in academic sources, even in skeptical sources that disregard their claims, so is what we use per WP:COMMONNAME. That they claim it is instrinsic to the concept because aliens don't exist! It is just a terminology thing; we do not use scare quotes in the manner you suggest per the WP:MOS. Anything else is unreliable and redundant because it indicates that ufo contactee proper means someone who has "actual" contact, which is not what the word means and also not true. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of contactees

Regarding this edit, all of them are explicitly named as "contactees" in the reliable sources cited. A contactee is someone who claims to have been contacted. It's not an editor's purview to remove obvious frauds from the list. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie This same person has been trying to rewrite the contactee articles in ways that are somewhat pro-fringe, e.g. removing that one founded a religion, or removing the qualification that another claimed to have a genius IQ and a bunch of other stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a new user with some knowledge of WP:PAG, however they have a blind spot when it comes to checking sources, e.g. edits like this where they remove text which is explicitly supported by a source contained in the article. I'd advise reverting all their contributions, however a number of their edits are uncontroversial grammar and formatting improvements, so some unlucky clean up person will have to slog through all their edits one by one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the inconvenience, I'll do my best to help correct my errors. Peacefyre (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had no agenda, I was sincerely trying to be bold in improving the articles. I'll be more cautious moving forward. It may be more conducive to building an encyclopedia to assume good faith when possible. Peacefyre (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you you for clarifying this for me. Peacefyre (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Contactee