This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
The current title can be interpreted as a statement of existence of ancient astronauts. Our titles usually indicate whether a subject is doubtful, a hypothesis, or a conspiracy theory. We need some type of added word or rephrasing of the title to indicate the doubtful nature of this subject. Ancient astronaut hypothesis is a possibility. What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm no fan of tweaky article renaming (Okay was recently moved to OK - sheesh!) but this seems reasonable, and your suggestion is a good one. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and make the move. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I think after the move, this talk page's archives no longer work right (it says there are no archives, but there is a working archive link in the talk page section above this one). Does anyone know how to link the past archives back to here? (I briefly searched, but couldn't find how, and I don't want to risk messing up the page...) Zeniff (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
First time I've read this article, and it seems full of POV. E.g. the introduction calls it a 'pseudo-scientific', even though it has been and continues to be advocated by respectable scientists. E.g. was Carl Sagan a 'pseudo-scientist'? No mention of him in the info box, which ludicrously cites Erich von Däniken as an 'original proponent' (even though he was writing after Sagan, and many decades after the hypothesis actually originated).
No doubt some proponents of it (e.g. von Daniken) were or are pseudo-scientific but that doesn't mean the hypothesis is. Also it is closely related to theories such as Directed panspermia which are considered perfectly acceptable. Ben Finn (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"...a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that posits intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth and made contact with humans in antiquity and prehistory."
"...the possibility that extraterrestrial contact occurred during recorded history...Shklovski and Sagan stressed that these ideas were speculative and unproven."
The pseudo-science is the claim that extraterrestrials have visited Earth, along with the claims that these supposed visits influenced and created pretty much everything in human culture (language, the pyramids, Roxanne ... everything too advanced to have been created by mere humans, plus religion). Sagan stated, essentially that it is not impossible that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials. Sagan likely also made it clear that it is possible there is/are a god(s). There is a world of difference between that and the belief that there is some loving grandfather type who created everything and wants nothing more than for us to believe that despite all evidence to the contrary.
The bottom line, though, is a lot simpler: If independent reliable sources said it was a pseudoscience created by Honey Boo Boo some time late last week, that is what we would report. If those sources said it was a proven fact discovered by Archimedes on July 25, 205 BCE... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "pseudo-scientific" bit from the beginning of the article. It is not an unbiased and objective view of a hypothesis some people subscribe to. An hypothesis is a essentially an assumption and needs no proof anyway, therefore cannot be "pseudo-scientific", regardless of the lack of evidence supporting the Ancient Alien hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFDC:C940:71E2:4C66:CFE3:41E5 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see below. (One discussion on this, not two.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Calling this legitimate theory pseudoscience is very insulting. This should be changed. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
See my above response to POV. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
XFEM Skier, it should be removed, regardless of your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a sandbox for your personal opinions. It is designed to simply state an amount of objectively viewed information without editors putting their beliefs into articles. Whether or not evidence actually supports the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis has no bearing on its position as simply a hypothesis. Hypotheses require no further evidence and are simply a guess. Theories must be backed up by valid evidence, and the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis is not a scientifically proven theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFDC:C940:71E2:4C66:CFE3:41E5 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
No, a scientific hypothesis (which this claims to be) is neither "simply a guess" nor "an assumption (that) needs no proof". (Your proposed definition would mean there is no such thing as "pseudoscience".) A scientific hypothesis is testable. A pseudoscience evolves to avoid all tests. But this is all off-topic.
More to the point: This is Wikipedia. Independent reliable sources from relevant, mainstream academics call it a "pseudoscience". It is, therefore, a pseudoscience. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what part of me providing two sources that it is pseudoscience makes it my personal opinion. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)