This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grey alien article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 9 months

Grey alien received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which was archived on 2006. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Paranormal High‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Horror Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Folklore Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

1) The first image (well, actually first two images) on the article show signs of being AI-generated. I'm normally against the depiction of AI-generated content unless absolutely necessary (as would be the case with, say, the article on generative AI), but in this case, I do not see how feeding a prompt to a machine and pasting the regurgitated result into a Wikipedia article levitates things. I say we change it to a similar one that was actually definitively human-made.

2) The second image is nearly identical to the first one, can we please remove it?

3) The first paragraph does not reference any sources. It specifically needs sources at

"...frequently featured in claims of close encounter and alien abduction"

and

"...typically described as having small, humanoid bodies, smooth, grey skin, disproportionately large, hairless heads, and large, black, almond-shaped eyes".

I just hope this topic won't start an edit war.

Великая Русь 14:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are new to Wikipedia, so welcome to the project. Concerning the points you have raised: (1) With respect to the first/second image, please see this previous discussion. (2) The first paragraph of an article typically does not include citations, as it provides a summary of the main, sourced points within the body of the article. Please see MOS:LEAD. (3) The best way to prevent an edit war is to not start an edit war. Posting concerns/questions on an article Talk page, as you did, is precisely the best way to proceed, as it is from the resultant discussion that WP:CONSENSUS can be achieved; or put another way, how edit wars can be prevented. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo, the images I made for the article were replaced with by Peacefyre in this edit with a rather insulting edit summary (moreso given that the replacement image does, indeed, show signs of being AI generated). I didn't respond at the time, as I felt it would be a bit untoward for me to revert it out of hand. But given the concern raised by the new editor here and the nature of your response, I think it'd be less questionable for me to fix that, now.

If anyone has serious concerns about the quality, I could produce another. I had a 3d rendering (photorealistic style) I was working on, or I could produce one that lacks the visible bleeding in the inking (the paper I used was not ideal for the ink I used). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that replacement. I like the original, but I trust your artistic skill to render a superior version if you are so inclined. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your comment about the images in my reply to JoJo Anthrax, but to weigh in on the other matters, I would agree with JoJo (again). The first section of every article (called the 'lead' or 'lede') is generally not cited, as it consists of a summary of the article. If there are claims in the lead that you cannot find reproduced in the body, or which fail verification in the body, then they can be removed, or sources for them found.

Your comment here is unlikely to provoke an edit war, and if it does, that is on the editors doing the warring. Bringing this stuff up at talk is the proper response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you for your support and guidance, MjolnirPants. Великая Русь 16:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the use of AI here, it's not as if any image is not just an artist's impression. It does not seem to me relevant what we use to create an imaginary image. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the consensus expressed at WP:AIIMAGE. I don't have a problem with AI-generated images used to illustrate fictional concepts in principle, but I -and many other editors- have a serious problem with the idea of WP being flooded with AI slop as well as with the dubious practices of training such AIs and the ethical considerations inherent to using such images. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to talk about "real" things (like people), not fictional concepts. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to your reading of it, but the only part of it that seems to refer to "real" things is the language about "named people and in technical or scientific subjects such as anatomy and chemistry", and the word "especially" is used to qualify those. That seems crystal clear to me that it applies across the board, except for the rare exceptions mentioned. Which makes sense, as that was the consensus of the large discussion several months ago about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]