Talk:Ancient astronaut hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ancient astronauts)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles
Four groups
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Acalycine, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29th March, 2014. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 


Agrest: books?[edit]

I took the following two new entries from the list:

  • 1961: Matest M. Agrest (book, The Astronauts of Yore)
  • 1963: Matest M. Agrest (book, On the Track of Discovery: Riddles of Outer Space : Scientists Unravel Mysteries : Secrets of History)

I don't think that these are two books by Matest Agrest. In my opinion it's more likely that "Astronauts of Yore" is an essay published in "On the track of discovery" - by whomever that anthology (?) might be edited. See the bibliography Agrest's son put together, concerning his father's paleocontact writings. If his father had written two books about the subject, he would have known (and others would, too). I know that Google Books lists On the track of discovery as a book by Agrest - I simply don't trust them, because bibliographic accuracy is not exactly the strength of Google Books. Does anybody have an actual copy of these purported texts/ books by Agrest? Like, something papery that was printed fifty years ago? :) Jonas kork (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC) PS: The Russian wikipedia article on Agrest doesn't mention any paleocontact books by Agrest, too. Jonas kork (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, there's a problem. On the track of discovery is something including various authors - there seems to have been at least 3 series.[1][2]. Ah, searched for them both, confirmed that Astronauts of Yore (if that's the proper translation, 'antiquity' may be better' is in On the track of discovery.[3]. Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed they are not books. However, the section it was under was Proponents and publications. So, I think that M. Agrest and his articles deserve mention, especially since he probably inspired von Däniken and Sitchin. Ljfeliu (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I do have a copy of the article titled "Ancient Astronauts" which he wrote in 1961 for "On Land and At Sea". This is the article in which he talks about Sodom and Gomorrah being nuclear blasted. The article is in Russian. I do have an English version machine-translated. Ljfeliu (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You are free to add that (possibly in the article on Matest M. Agrest himself, too). But we should not make two books out of one essay, as just happened. ;) Agrest's influence may have gone through the publications of Vyacheslav Zaitsev (careful, different persons of the same name), and of course Agrest's contributions to the French magazine Planète (Pauwels/ Bergier). Personally, I'm interested in the article you mention (both languages). Do you have it in digital format, and would you be willing to email it to me? Jonas kork (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, let me know where to send it. Ljfeliu (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's where you can access the article: [epizodsspace.no-ip.org/bibl/na-sushe-i-na-more/1961/agrest.html КОСМОНАВТЫ ДРЕВНОСТИ]Ljfeliu (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I updated the proponents section to list Agrest's 1961 article. I also expanded Matest M. Agrest.--Ljfeliu (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is trash[edit]

It opens up with a reasonable "pseudo-scientific" label in the intro, but the entire article is packed from top to bottom with "evidence" that it's a scientific theory with anything contradictory being lightly mentioned and written in a way suggesting it's just a matter of opinion. In contrast, other articles regarding pseudo-scientific conspiracies, like the Moon landing conspiracy theories, tear apart every single claim the proponents make with utmost detail. This article on the other hand feels like it's a transcript from the History Channel.--77.42.169.57 (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Auto archiving[edit]

I have set up auto archiving on this talk page. If there are objections, revert my edit. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Theory?[edit]

I notice that the word "theory" is used a number of places in the article, contrary to this discussion from the archives:

Shouldn't we substitute other words most of these places? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

We need to alter the title[edit]

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)