Systemic difficulty with sources

[edit]

A number of popular researchers seem(ed) to believe in interdimensional or spiritual beings and mind manipulation conspiracy theories, yet there are numerous even less credible sources (UFO cults and radical politics) out there. Even popular researchers are usually "in-universe", it's a challenge to find very credible ones who treat it in a rational naturalist way that avoids revisionism of much of science, while taking in consideration all of psychology, psychiatry, neurology, sociology and culture, tradition, religion and politics (as well as the problems of "regression therapy" and of "abductees" needing to fit their story within stereotypes in attempt to be considered credible; their own subjective culture/fear influenced personal experiences and their interpretations). It's also understandable considering the stigma researchers may face if perceived to take any of it seriously (a problem Mack apparently also faced). And the obvious fact that there's till a lot to learn about the brain and human behavior. This means that it's difficult to find reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the topic and to balance the article for a non-partisan mainstream encyclopedia. Finding sources is as important as editing, so I welcome interested editors to help finding and listing them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abductee narrative

[edit]

I didn't rework that section other than converting an undue and style-discouraged box to prose, but there are problems: some researchers or organizations expect certain criteria and abductees will tend to feel pressured to satisfy those, which is not really covered. These steps and phases also appear to be presented as factual sequencial events rather than as common points from the reports literature, a type of living tradition. Since some people do live profound personal experiences, a part also has to do with related cognitive aspects... I'm not sure yet how to present this and quality sources are difficult to find (see my above query for more sources). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any information to the placement of implants on the human body? Mainly common areas! 2A02:C7C:7247:5500:3440:93A2:EDC6:4202 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notable claims

[edit]

One of the most notable alleged abduction claims, known worldwide, the Italian case of Pier Fortunato Zanfretta, is missing in the list. Please consider that this case is very complex and, at least in its first part (1978-1981), is supported by a lot of witnesses and stricking clues, to the point it was considered chronicle more than an ufology accident. The Italian journalist Rino di Stefano even wrote a very serious and detailed book on this case, which was also translated to English. I am really perlpexed it was not mentioned here ! 95.233.182.121 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point here?

[edit]

This page is clearly heavily policed by people who believe in literal abductions. A casual reader would not be aware that there's a significant psychological literature on the psychiatric phenomena reputed to produce abduction narratives without a literal alien abduction. None of the significant authors are listed, other than devoting much of the page to an extreme minority viewpoint. Clearly there's no point trying to make the page reasonably neutral. What's the point of Wikipedia if pages look like this? 60.242.120.201 (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The intro says that alien abduction refers to the phenomenon of people reporting what they claim to be the real experience. Later sections start with
  • Mainstream scientists reject claims that the phenomenon literally occurs as reported.
  • An early alien abduction claim occurred
  • The precise number of alleged abductees is uncertain.
Where is the policing by abduction believers? I don't see it. If you see any pro-abduction-belief statements, please tell us here. It will be corrected.
Is it the revert of edits like this, this and this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]