Talk:Ancient Aliens

Wikilink

Can we link to the Antikythera mechanism and wreck and the Baghdad Battery in the pilot's summary? serioushat 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Disinfo as source

Is Disinfo a reliable source? Neither the cited page, nor its Wikipedia article gives any impression of reliability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Detailing the Commentators/Researchers that have participated in this project

I just recently finished both Seasons of Ancient Aliens and when I came to the wikipedia I was expecting a bit more information regarding the publication than what was currently present. I'd like to suggest a menu subsection wherein the prominent commentators/researchers/professors are listed, with hyperlinks to their respective websites/projects.

I think another good subsection would be a compendium of all the multiple researchers, both auxiliary and prominent, with links to their respective works and publications.

The reason I think this is important, is because the other day when describing this documentary to someone, I was explaining that it was a very impressive compendium of research from various and seemingly unrelated fields that came together to present such compelling arguments. When going through the episodes we are repeatedly introduced to specialists in archaeology, geology, climatology, oceanography, topography, egyptology, history, philosophy, religion, linguistics, and on and on.

In my opinion, literally drawing out these contributions would help accurately and objectively express just how massive this undertaking was.

68.101.53.46 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Respectfully,

Blake Macon, Georgia

See Ancient astronauts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):We don't normally do that for television series. This is not an article about 'ancient aliens' - we have one at Ancient astronauts, this needs to stick to the television series. What this article is actually missing is any third party commentary (meeting our criteria at WP:IRS) on the series. That's unfortunate although it might be that there wasn't much. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lede

They seem a bit heavy handed to me. My thought is we move it to the Critical reception section, and that we trim back a bit the linking to the book--this article is just about the show, and it's good to say that the show is based on the book, but unless a reliable source says something like "the show is based on a book that was discredited", linking the two passes to far towards WP:OR. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Only the pilot episode is about Erich von Däniken book, not the whole series as the beginning text is implying. The are others who worked in the field besides him. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. Any objection to me moving and recasting? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved the criticism section - usually the list of episodes are the last thing in a TV article. It's fine the way it is, honestly I'm not going to spend my weekend arguing over this show or people like DougWeller. I have better things to do. Thanks for helping out. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes. The only thing I've ever been very unhappy with has been descriptions of episodes that referred to disputed subjects in an npov way (ie a reader might not realise that they were disputed) and I haven't been very involved in editing this article. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a reader will get the idea that the subject matter of the show in general is disputed. The episode descriptions explain what each episode is about and that's all they need to do. To further indicate that every single statement that lies within those descriptions is disputed may be going overboard and would show too much negative bias to the subject matter than it already has. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's purposeful, the introduction of the idea that the subject matter in general is disputed. The show is frequently criticized as one of several that tarnish the once-good reputation of the History Channel. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the criticism described in the body of the article should be mentioned in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

History may be getting flack for shows like Ancient Aliens but I don't see what cutting down trees and hauling trucks over ice roads has to do with "History" either. Same goes for wrestling on SyFy and reality shows on MTV (Music Television). Perhaps a station should air what they were supposed to air from the get go then everyone would be happy. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the criticism of the show should be summarized in the lede--the lede represents a summary of the entire contents of the article. I have no objection to doing that, but I think the level of detail in there now is excessive, esp. for a lede. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated links at the "See also" section

At WP:SEEALSO, the guideline says, "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section", which is why I removed some redundant links from the "See also" section, ones which were already present in the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, although personally I would like to focus on the POV and OR issues before we turn to MOS. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible OR

The article currently contains the phrase: "... the pilot episode is "basically a rundown of Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods?",[8] a popular book about ancient astronauts that was thoroughly debunked in the 1970s.[9]"

First, a question: [8] is from Tafford Publishing, which is a vanity press. Is Beebe an acknowledged expert in the science or sociology, or some other area that lends authority to their assertions?

Second, this is pretty clearly SYNTH. The sources at 9 do not mention the TV show. So we have a statement from Beebe with essentially a one line plot summary (A), being linked to sources about how Daniken's book was discredited (B) which implies that the show is non-scientific. [C]. My thought is that Beebe's work can be used only if it's reliability can be established, and that we cannot used reviews or articles about Daniken's work here, unless those sources make a direct connection to the TV show (as Beebe does). Thoughts? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the core of the show revolves around von Däniken's beliefs as published in his books, primarily his best-seller Chariot of the Gods?, it is very relevant to the reader to know that the book was debunked by respected religious scholars and mainstream scientists. Yes, indeed, the television program is non-scientific, and it is important that our readers should know this. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? Trying to build a web that implies the show is non-scientific is not our job here. Our job is to use reliable sources back statements about the subject. If reliable sources say that it is non-scientific, we say that, and if an RS makes a connection between the show and the book, we can say that, but the mesh that is evolving here is not appropriate, at least in my opinion. The best way to determine if there is a meaningful relationship between the book (which I read as a teenager, and I'm an old fart) and the show is to find a reliable source that makes that connection for us. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible review source

I don't know whether Poffy's Movie Mania is a reliable source for anything but Poffy's opinions, but there is a review of the TV show hosted there at "Ancient Aliens: Proving you don't have to be abducted to be anal probed."

Poffy's website appears in one other Wikipedia article as a reference: List of fictitious atheists and agnostics. I don't do a lot of movie or TV show articles, so I don't know what review sites are considered reliable. This one is on target, but it does not appear to be quite as mainstream as required by WP. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an SPS of this guy, he doesn't seem to have any particular expertise. seems like he has a beef with IMDB, I wouldn't use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

lede

Xm638 reverted my reversion of an IP who deleted the sentence from the lede stating that the show has been criticized as pseudoscience. I think that statement is pretty well sourced in the article, as since the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article's body, I think the statement should remain. As far as I know, there's been no praise of the show as being scientifically accurate, and if there is, I'd be glad to have that in the article. But barring that, I think the presentation is pretty neutral in terms of reflecting what sources we do have. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"the show has been criticized". Mostly incorrect. The article you provide criticizes the ideas this show is based behind, not this show. Note that it is written before the first series even aired. You are bringing in a very negative and biased view to this article. I don't mind having that in the critical reception, but citing it in the overview isn't doing anything. And to be fair, this show is very well receieved by the UFO community and has been proved to have a lot of scientific fact reguarding their ideas on Hy-Brasil, pyramids, artificats from Egypt. I will try to edit this page up next week, if I get some time, with fair opinions of both sides. --Xm638 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The pseudoscience criticism is valid and supported, and should remain in the lead. The show itself has been criticized by normal scientists, not by UFO hunters and alien astronaut seekers. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And this benefits the overview how? The article cited is much more relevant on the "ancient astronaut" page, it has nothing to do with the show itself! You are showing bias in your own comment, the show is all about suggesting different alternatives to mainstream science; the one paper you keep bringing up criticizes, not the show, but various ideas the show is based behind. Ancient Aliens admits to be speculative at times, this topic is controversial; no news there! I'd rather the first paragraph just give an overview of what the show is trying to do, and let the reader make up his/her own mind. All I ask is that we try to show both sides, the amount of bias currently shown is straight up ridiculous. --Xm638 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There are four references for the critical reception section, and the first three deal directly with the show. I think you have a valid point regarding the fourth, since it does not treat the show directly, and I shall remove that sentence. But that does not change my position on the question of the sentence in the lede. Please review WP:NPOV, we are not supposed to present both sides, but rather neutrally present what reliable sources say. If you can find sources praising the science of the show, by all mean bring them here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have no problem with the reviews that are mentioned, and I have no problem talking about how the ideas brought up in this show are not accepted by mainstream scientists. But, this show is not about saying "this is fact, accept it.", it is about different possibilities! If you watch any of the episodes, they suggest different routes to many ideas, by trying to act like the show is scientifically incorrect right from the get go is not doing justice to what the show is about (which is what the lede is all about!!). Ancient Aliens in a way is about defying what is widely accepted and suggesting different alternatives! I will bring forward articles that prove some of the things mentioned in this show hopefully next week.... if I don't get around to it, I ask others to try and do this as well; this show is not being done justice by this article. I know a good number of things mentioned in the episode "The Evidence" have very well written papers and documentation that back up what they say.

I will level with you, how about we put something along the lines of "the show explores a number of controversial ideas and topics that some have criticized as pseudoscience." This is even pushing it, because there are people who strongly support it that are scientists and scholars, some are interviewed in the show, but I will attempt to get articles on this as well. And in the critical reception.... "Some reviewers..." That would be a good start in removing said bias. Like I said, give me a week or so to gather some good articles backing up things mentioned in the show. --Xm638 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We can play with the wording later, I'm interested in what sources you can turn up from the UFO crowd. That's fair game, as they are the audience the show is oriented towards. But we will have to observe due weight, and keep in mind whatever one's belief, this is a fringe area in terms of science. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored the Fritze article named "On the Perils and Pleasures of Confronting Pseudohistory". Fritze criticizes the History Channel for airing "the credulous documentary Ancient Aliens" in long rant against pseudoscience. By "credulous" he means too quick to believe, too gullible. He is saying that Ancient Aliens puts pseudoscience on the air without examining it very thoroughly. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote? I can't get to the full text of that article...--Nuujinn (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It would take me scheduling another visit to the local university library. Until then I just have my brief notes and these sentences: "Why does the History Channel air the credulous documentary Ancient Aliens and by doing so give credence to the ideas of Erik von Däniken?" Fritze writes about the popular attraction to pseudoscience, then says, "Periodically it revives, as evidenced by the Ancient Aliens documentary that appeared on the History Channel in the spring of 2009. In a pop culture with a short memory and a voracious appetite, aliens and pyramids and lost civilizations are recycled like fashions." Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Xm638. I must disagree. The ideas contained in this show are not "controversial" within science. There is no debate found in academic journals regarding UFOs and aliens and pyramids and "lost" civilizations. Such speculation is ignored. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the ideas are not controversial within science, but we do not limit ourselves to what science says. If reliable sources cover reception of the show outside of the scientific community, we can cover that, keeping mind that this is not mainstream science. Binksternet, since you have a quote from your notes, that seems find to me and sufficiently verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

'Kay, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

'Critical Review' section is filled with inherent bias

The 'Critical Review' section lets the misinformed feel that the reviews are in fact from reputable sources such as academics or historians however they are merely from television show reviewers in magazines or newspapers and as such, due to the nature of their career not experts in the field so to publish their 'higlighted' quotes of 'psedoscience' or 'pseudohistory' are misleading. When being on the history channel the issues are factual, and are raising valid points such as questions of who created Göbekli Tepe and who buried it and why, a place which doesn't fit in with conventional history. Speculation is how paradigm shifts occur.

-SM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.245.123 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can follow see what the sources are, and if there are academic reviews, by all means add them with the appropriate citations. It's a TV show, so reviewers of TV shows are appropriate sources. I don't really agree that we can assume that everything that appears on the history channel is factual. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My Additions

I am open to discuss the changes I have just made to this page... as you can see, a number of users are upset with the bias in this article and I have attempted to correct that by showing some common topics within the show, and also artificats that they have proposed as evidence to this theory. I also edited the Critical Reception too. --Xm638 (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

youtube is not generally an RS, so I have removed that bit. In regard to the other ref, please complete the citation indicating where you found it, otherwise it will have to be removed as well. We need to know whence the reference came; web link, or journal/magazine/newspaper name, date, and page number, that sort of thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would still like to reference the interview, I just thought Youtube would be most reliable since you can actually hear it, rather than me pointing to the radio's website or something. What is generally most acceptable when citing a FM radio interview? Also, which other reference are you talking about? I'll try my best! --Xm638 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 'bias' in the article, that accusation goes two ways. I was shocked by the bias for the show, so I worked to put other views into it. When the article has opposing views including the well-documented accusation of promoting pseudoscience, it is in keeping with the guideline at WP:NPOV. If "upset" editors who object to such neutrality take out or reduce the impact of the opposition, the article will fail the NPOV guideline. One faulty way to present criticism is to try and buffer it with favorable reviews. I would rather see the critical reviews given a solid platform instead something like "Even though everyone I know likes the show, a few odd ducks have complained about it" or similar waffling. Let the criticism be what it is. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to bring a balanced side to it too, I'm not calling for the negative views to be removed, I've never said that. But the pseudoscience issue was just randomly thrown in and made the article very misleading, it had a very negative overtone to it. I feel the article is very balanced as it stands right now, and am happy.... if it stays... haha. --Xm638 (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: 'bias' and 'balance': we're not obligated to present offbeat fringe theories as equally credible with the status quo. Read over WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do we even have this page? If you don't want to explain what they present and try to help readers understand what the show is about you might as well delete it. --Xm638 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Text and references in this article must talk about the TV show

Text and references in this article must talk about the TV show. This article is not the place to argue for ancient aliens, so any reference that does not specifically discuss the show is not suitable, and text based on such references should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: I just put it back in, but changed the first sentence because I agree it seemed like it was trying to debate; but everything mentioned are things you see in the show. This is a very beneficial paragraph because I think it will give readers a very good idea about things they would see in a typical episode, which will help make sense about how the show works in terms of ideas relating to found artifacts etc. --Xm638 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, what you need to do is find sources that say THE TV SHOW had such and such an idea presented, not just start describing general ideas about ancient astronauts and pyramids, etc. The TV show has to be in all of your sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet, it's not appropriate to use the article to try to bolster the credibility of fringe and conspiracy theories. And it's especially inappropriate to use books and web pages ("extraterrestrial community"?) about aliens and pyramids that are not WP:RS reliable sources of fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This show has a lot to do with the extraterrestrial community, if you deem all of this innapropriate how do you expect to present what this show is about? The things I referenced are mentioned exactly in the show as references to their own ideas, why can we not try to explain what this show is attempting to do? Might as well not even have this page! What you are saying is absolutely ridiculous, you want to say that only scientific fact can be presented in this article, and the show is all about showing different ideas and alternatives to that. If you think it's ok to pollute this article with your bias, I guess there's nothing I can do to stop that, which is extremely unfortunate and sad. This page is nothing more than a promotion page for the scientific community, so that other readers can instantly think this show has no solid base to it, which it does, but you want to tell me that unless some scientists say it I can't bring it to the article. Pathetic. I can tell you didn't even study the links I provided, because the website was a collaboration of information presented from the show. Thanks a lot! --Xm638 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the topics themselves, go to the various topic pages, certainly starting with Ancient astronauts. This article is not about the topic, it is about the TV show, like who appeared on it, any bloopers, when it aired, who produced it, what people said about it... stuff like that. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, and the information I provided is information you would find watching the TV show. You say the links I provided don't mention the show, I cited a website that is a collaboration of information collected from the show. You are being unreasonable. Why aren't each of the episodes descriptions cited? If we are going to call elements of the show psuedoscience, why can't we take a look at said elements that are in the show? You are abusing your reputation by not listening to me, and I speak for the fans of this show and UFO Community who are extremely displeased with this article. Instead of trying to level with me, you erase things that I spent hours studying and researching, believing you are correct, and tell me I am raising hell with an edit war. --Xm638 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I put that edit warring warning on your user talk page so that you would heed the warning and not be blocked. I don't want you to stop working on this article.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television), the episodes don't have to be cited if they just have a brief description of what their content was, and if there is no dispute about them. Also at that guideline is a description of how a "Themes" section could be brought into the article, perhaps beyond whatever appears in "Production" and "Reception". Such a section would hold information about what the producers wanted to put across, what they drew on for inspiration, etc. The text would need to be well-sourced to prevent original research. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything you just listed is exactly what I brought forward, except I didn't call it "Themes". The books cited are books cited clearly in the show, the websites cited contain information from the show, I explained how they looked at those things and how they pointed to it as evidence. I feel like everything I wrote was completely valid, justified and cited well. I don't feel like I need to cite a source that says the show looks at a certain book, because the books are mentioned clearly in the episodes, they interview a lot of the authors! This is similar logic to the descriptions of the show not being cited, so I don't see why the section needed to be suddenly removed, the only thing I see is that the section name needs to be renamed "Themes". --Xm638 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure you understand what Binksternet is trying to tell you. You can't create a "themes" section using your own research. You'd first need a respected third-party source (for examples, see The_Wire#Themes) like the Washington Post, New York Times, Variety, etc. to publish their analysis about the show, what they feel the producers were trying to accomplish, what books they found mentioned in the show, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying at all! It's not my own research first of all, it's exactly what the show references. Two, your logic there is pointless because if we were to go by what YOU think is respected, there's going to be an extremely one sided view on this article... oh wait, there is already! This show is based around things that a lot of people don't think are credible... that's what this show is about, to try and prove people otherwise! If we can't discuss what is presented in the show and their reasoning, the article doesn't make sense! It is just a place for people to talk negatively about it and reference psuedoscience!!! Talking about what is referenced in the show is exactly the same thing as telling the reader what is in each episode. As long as everyone agrees it's ok, that's what I've been told! --Xm638 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits removed here [1] were, in my opinion, properly removed. This is not an appropriate place to put forward evidence for ancient aliens. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Then all references to the show containing elements of psuedoscience should be removed, and that should be handled also on the ancient astronaut page. If we're going to talk about the elements being psuedoscience, we need to look into the elements that are proposed by the show, in the show; not discussing one view and expecting readers to go to another page to look at the positive side. Some things I mentioned are things they have proposed only on the show! It's not all that mainstream in relation to the common ancient astronaut beliefs, such as the planes... that was something they did a lot of interviewing/investigating on via the show. --Xm638 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to put forward evidence on ancient aliens? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE SHOW IS ABOUT!!! All I was doing was showing evidence that is proposed ON THE SHOW, so we can contrast with the claims that it's pseudoscience! Is that so much to ask? Apparently so, and that is why I, and many others, are saying this article is riddled with bias. --Xm638 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The show is about evidence of ancient aliens, but the WP article is about the show, not about ancient aliens. We have an article on ancient aliens, and that's where sources covering ancient aliens belong. What belong here are source about the show. Now, if you can find some reliable sources that discuss the show's treatment of material directly, that would be fair game for this article. But if we take sources that do not mention the show directly, and use them here, we are in violation of WP:NOR. I hope you understand. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. Because I am asking to do something similar to what has already been done in the show descriptions... but that's ok, I'm done. Lesson learned about trying to balance an article on Wikipedia, won't make the same mistake again. --Xm638 (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's really simple. You find an article in TV Guide (or something similar) that says Kevin Burns wanted to tap into the popular conception of ancient astronauts, and he wanted to make a fun show that was not so constrained by hard science. (I'm making this up!) Then you find an online interview of Giorgio A. Tsoukalos that says he drew on various themes that were in Chariots of the Gods including ancient images of spaceship-like conveyances and spacesuit-like body covering. Stuff like that. It always has to be about the TV show, though; that's the requirement we keep hammering away at. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I could bring forward many interviews, but they are from the UFO Community and will be deemed innapropriate. So like I said, I'm done. Can't do much when everyone wants to shut out one side of the story because they think it's not acceptable. --Xm638 (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with interviews with people interested in UFOs, so long as the interview addresses the show directly and is published in a reliable source such as a newspaper, magazine or book. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Legendary Times

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos is the publisher of "Legendary Times" and also the consulting producer for the show. I'm not sure this is an appropriately objective source of opinion as to the show's critical reception. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't? Wow, what a surprise! Not even going to begin to stand up for it, already know what you're going to tell me, might as well delete it! --Xm638 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing would please me more than to find a review by a reputable media outlet like The Denver Post or even a weekly alternative like The Village Voice saying that they loved the show and it was very compelling. I'd add it to the article in a minute. But dude...the show's producer publishing a review of the show written by a guy who was on the show saying how wonderful it is? We can do better than that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources need to be independent of the show. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed 'On Average' in critical reception

I removed the sentence 'on average' in the critical reception area as there was no reference as to how this 'average' was calculated. Is it the mean, the median or the range? or is it just subjective? which it possibly was.

Moreover the reference Re: pseduohistory was not in reference to this show. It was just someone referencing the concept of pseudohistory, which if this is the way to make articles... people could reference all sorts of different concepts.

NB on average reviews should be taken from the public and well known internet review sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.86.105 (talk • contribs)

You're right about on average, I replaced that. I do not believe that buzzillions is a reliable source, so I removed that, and your removal of the Fritze reference seems completely inappropriate esp. given the discussion above regarding the use of the term pseudoscience in the article, so I have reverted those edits. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn. Please don't remove the Fritze reference; it is specifically on topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Extreme Bias

Seriously folks, this article is crammed with bias against this show. I looked at the edit history and you have editors labeling positive comments as junk, you all have removed countless edits that tries to help readers understand the creators' reasoning, you have been overly harsh with citing references for the show yet a number of comments against the show are uncited, there has been some great references put forth for the show that you all have removed saying they are unreliable. You say the review from Navia isn't specific enough to verify but you take someones word for what the Fritze article says.

I mean really folks, can we grow up here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.179.202 (talk • contribs)

What I labeled as 'junk' in my edit summary was an unreliable non-independent source: namely Producer Tsoukalos's AASRA journal that proclaims a mission "to spread the Ancient Astronaut theory" and a self-promotional quote so un-notable it could only be found reproduced in a fan forum. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're fighting a war that's hopeless, I'm going to try and flag this article for someone to take a look at. I made a good number of edits that attempted to correct this issue, but like you said everyone here is quick to get rid of anything positive. For example, I just cited an interview where Giorgio talks about how well receieved the show has been with viewers and how History was so pleased with how the show was doing it would be able to come back for a third season. But nope!! That was instantly taken off and put in the production section. It's ridiculous, I'm with you. --Xm638 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Someone" is already looking at this article, several someones. The more eyes that are on it will be good, though, so I welcome you to bring this article to the attention of one of the administrative noticeboards. Don't expect the show's criticism to be reduced. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Get real, I've said a thousand times I don't want that... I want to bring in views of the UFO Community and show what the show presents, you tell me I can't do that. --Xm638 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Crammed"? Actually, the only criticism is in the "Critical reception" section, where it is expected that positive and negative reviews will go. The rest of the article is positive or just a neutral list of facts. The negative views are very well cited, not as you say "uncited". Your observation simply does not match reality. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article says the scientific community generally disaproves. Where is this cited? Or are users supposed to look at the Fritze article that says nothing about AA in the provided preview and figure this out? Your arrogance and unwillingness to open up to the positive reception this show has received isn't helping. From top to bottom I got the feeling the authors of this page were trying to disprove the show. Is this what the Wikipedia community wants?