Talk:Ancient Aliens

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

i agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.185.98 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

I agree with the idea of at least mentioning the authors and researchers appearing on each episode and that could be perfectly made on the respective episode description.. With this people can come here, find the authors and search for their books and work online. Adding links to their websites or wikipedia pages would be a plus. Little by little we can do this task, actually now I am watching one episode I will start adding the authors I see on this episode --Dendrotech (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking to notable authors would be fine, linking to non-notable (in our narrow definition) authors' websites would be inappropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think detailing the researchers that have participated/contributed to this television series would be an excellent idea. Also, to respond to Dougweller's comment, I see your point that this article is about the television series, but seeing as how the television series is about the topic of Ancient Aliens, I think at least providing the names of the researchers who appeared on the television series, along with some sort of brief listing/description as to some their contributions to the topic or study of Ancient Aliens could be really helpful. This wouldn't be biographical info. about the authors/researchers, nor would it be a duplication of the Ancient astronauts article that provides more information about the topic itself, rather it would be just their names and titles of any books they've published or links to any websites or wikipedia pages about them, if any exist. It would be sort of like a list of references for each episode of the Ancient Aliens television series. I haven't checked to see if the Proponents section of the Ancient astronauts article has all of the references associated with each the researchers/authors who appeared on this TV series, but either way, does anyone else think it could be helpful to link this information to each episode? I realize it's not typically done, but this is a documentary-type TV series so it might be justifiable if several people thought it would be helpful.

To respond to Nuujinn's comment about non-notable authors, I think the researchers would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia content under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability because these researchers/authors are notable on the subject area of Ancient Aliens. That's why these researchers/authors were included in the TV series. They've contributed to the topic and therefore their commentary is important, just like on Court TV News, attorneys are asked onto the shows to comment on legal cases, or when politicians, political analysts and political campaign advisors are invited onto CNN for their commentary on political news. In each instance, the commentators have knowledge and experience about the topics, and that's why they're qualified to provide interpretations and share information. Seeing as how the topic of extraterrestrials can be portrayed in an unfair and biased manner, and even sometimes passed off as psedoscience, I think that having a listing of the researchers that appeared in this TV series, along with the titles of some of their past research could help further Wikipedians expand on this topic because then they'd already have a list of references to go on. Crice88 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, this is an article about the show, not about the people who appear on the show. Whether or not they are notable by our criteria is immaterial to the issue of listing their research, etc. I don't know what you mean by 'topic' - the topic of the article is the show. We can wikilink to people who have appeared on the show that have articles perhaps, but that would be just a mention of their name. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. Researchers or commentators who appear on the show may be mentioned but listing their past research is too much for this article to bear, per WP:COATRACK. That is, unless some third party WP:SECONDARY source describes the person with regard to the television show. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the roughly 160 researchers/commentators who have appeared through Season 4, about 55 have their own articles in Wikipedia. Of them, this group seems to have significant applicable expertise in the areas presented, with little professional involvement in fringe topics:

3

The article currently features mocking negative commentary by such marginally-qualified non-notables as Ronald H. Fritze, Brad Lockwood, Alex Knapp, Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Brian Switek, and Ramsey Isler (who refers to "interviews with people of dubious authority"!). One wonders if there might be a bit of undue weight given to the criticisms. Lou Sander (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that all of these supported the idea of ancient aliens rather than criticising it. As well as assuming that not having an article makes a source fail WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what I said that would make anyone think I'm assuming those things. The point is that the mockingly criticizedal commenters/researchers are far from "people of dubious authority", and that those who call them that, and those whose criticisms are quoted, in spite of the reliability of the sources in which they are quoted, are, themselves, pretty much "people of dubious authority", e.g., maybe not so notable in their fields, which for the most part are journalistic in nature. One might call them "hacks" or "biased commentators", or "outsiders", compared, for example, to the astronauts and distinguished academics who dominate the above list. The well-sourced criticisms seem to rely on misused Argument from authority. Also, of course, the commenters/researchers appear in the episodes to support them and provide background, not to criticize them. Lou Sander (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that WP:BLP applies here also? For instance, you appear to be calling Fritze a dubious historian writing journalistic books. I presume you have sources for that? Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it's quite a stretch to say that general statements about some critics apply specifically to one of them. Nevertheless I respect BLP, and I thank you for the reminder. I hope you don't really presume that I have sources for those general statements, but are merely speaking in some sort of roundabout way. I never looked into Fritze, who is a minor academic (an honorable calling). I didn't really look much beyond the stated qualifications of the critics, none of whom seem to be household names. I DID dig into Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, who has a B.A. in archaeology from the University of Lancaster and whose career has been as an archaeologist for local governments in England. I was struck by the difference between his background, which I honor and respect, and the backgrounds of the persons listed above, who are not mentioned in the article and, according to some of its editors, aren't really supportive of the TV program or any of the ideas it expresses, in spite of their repeated presence there, or are only doing it for the money, or were taken out of context, or whatever. Lou Sander (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me Lou, but it sounds like you're saying that criticism is undue because critics are relative unknowns while stars of a TV show are notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The criticism might be just a little undue, given the absence of any mention of the notables mentioned above. And if they are the "stars" (a good way of putting it, IMHO), why are they so invisible in the article? This is, after all, an encyclopedia article about the TV show. Lou Sander (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The show usually fabricates a web of intersection between the beliefs of the people who appear as experts and the beliefs of the show's producers. Each episode is different, but typically they establish an unusual belief of the expert, for instance astronaut Buzz Aldrin who is certain he saw a UFO in space, and Jeff Meldrum who theorizes about the possible biology of Bigfoot, and then the show extends the expert's statements with conjecture and dramatization, to show that this belief could fit with the basic premise of aliens helping ancient man. The conjecture and dramatization is why most scientists don't even bother to comment on the show; it is below regard. Buzz Aldrin does not believe that ancient aliens were responsible for jump-starting human culture, nor does Jeff Meldrum. Many of the others in the above list can likewise be singled out and shown to be neutral or even hostile to the basic premise of the show. They agree to appear on the show because their pet theory will be described to a large audience, not because they subscribe to the ancient aliens theory.

I think the article's critical response section is suitable. If anything, it should be more strongly damning, but the available sources limit that possibility. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Due weight of a secondary source is never decided by how famous the author is, despite what you directly implied. The weight is decided by how that source reflects the preponderance of reliable sources. So the reliability is important, not the notability. Further, someone being notable does not mean they automatically have weight on an unrelated article, such as this. Weight has to be established by the usual criteria of secondary sourcing. Second Quantization (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following that. Could you simplify it a bit? The undue weight that I am referring to is the lack of information about the people who appear on the show, vs. the prominent properly-sourced criticisms of the show. A few of the former are mentioned in the Production section, but it is pretty out of date. The criticisms are fine, and readers can make up their own minds about their sources.

The Ramsey Isler criticism is actually about the South Park parody of Ancient Aliens. The comment about "people of dubious authority" refers to the characters in the South Park spoof, not to the people on Ancient Aliens, yet it is presented as a comment on Ancient Aliens itself. That led me to a wrong conclusion, so maybe it also leads others there. Perhaps it could be explained in the article, or removed, or whatever. Lou Sander (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens

Is the "I'm not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens" meme worth mentioning in the "In Popular Culture" section? Iapetus (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your edits

An anonymous editor just made some rather extensive changes to the article, having to do with episodes and schedules. There were no edit summaries, and no explanations on this page. PLEASE, if you are going to do big things, let the rest of us know what you are doing. Lou Sander (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

hi been correcting the data as its was wrong:

used this site to put it in order http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/episodes/season-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.156.233 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that, and it was good work. But best is if you tell people a little bit about what you're doing, when or before you do it. It saves them having to look into your stuff just to see if it's valid. (I looked into it, and it IS valid.) Lou Sander (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

ok didn't know about the process.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.156.233 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that History Channel has now reorganised its website, redefining the seasons and placing itself at odds with the reliable sources that have been reporting this series for the past 5 years. As a result, this list is now contradicted by the sources we use to cite episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

reply to aussie legend, it quite possible that we had the order wrong in the first place to begin with, as most had few episodes in it and one very large one, it you look an few seasons start and end in the same months and year, i think history channel would be getting the correct information from the producers of AA, i have looked everywhere, only found one dvd on season one to match it to history the other seasons of dvdd didn't list info on site, expect that it was 2 / 3 or 4 disc set so dvdd won't hold lots of episodes if the old layout...

Is the use of the word 'researchers' appropriate?

IMHO it should be replaced with the word 'participants' which is clearly neutral. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I watched "The Mystery of Puma Punku" last night and noticed that when the series referred to "researchers" the implication was that these researchers were some third party, as if to give the series some more credibility, but they were actually just people who appear in the series. That episode's summary says "This episode investigates" which is a better way to write the summaries, rather than using "researchers" each time. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Also agree, but think saying the show "investigates" anything is misleading since the premise of the show is quite clearly wild speculation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Simple solution: "This episode looks at" - or "discusses" Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Either of those options seems OK. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, basically, that they should be called "participants" though some of them, e.g. Sara Seager are legitimate scientific "researchers" in their own right. The prominent participants, IMHO, should be mentioned and identified by name and episodes participating in, with wikilinks as appropriate, so readers of the Ancient Aliens article can make up their own minds (as can we editors). Another example is Linda Moulton Howe. Though many may regard some of her work as silliness, there is no doubting that she is a "researcher" in cattle mutilations and crop circles, or that she is a qualified and competent award-winning investigative journalist. Lou Sander (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right, but if we call them all participants and link those with articles that should suffice. If we pick and choose we are not just inviting OR, we will almost certainly find editors changing how they are described. In any case we should just say "the participants" or "participating were" and only list the ones with articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I missed the above. Sorry. There should be no problem with changing descriptions or original research. The primary sources section of the policy forbidding original research allows the use of primary sources (the episodes themselves) to identify characters in a novel, for example, but not to comment on them in any way. Similarly, IMHO, the participants could be identified but no more. There are hundreds of participants, ranging from native guides to fringe theorists to eminent scientists. IMHO, editors should be able to mention any participant that they want to, as long as they provide citations of the primary sources (or secondary sources, in the unlikely event that they exist). Lou Sander (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure your suggestion is an improvement Lou. Is there an example of WP article of a similar History Channel show where we list all the WP-bio'd participants within each episode listing? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about other History Channel articles. But it is easy to see that THIS article includes nothing at all about the numerous and often credible outside participants, but quite a bit about people who declined to participate, people who ridicule the show and talk about "nonsense", "people of dubious authority", and the like. Similarly, some editors on this page have openly expressed their contempt for the material in the show.

It seems to me that this article violates policy by being written from something very far from a neutral point of view. In a nutshell, NPOV says that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

The side taken here is that the show is a silly fraud; it expressed with scornful contempt, both in the article and on the talk page. The side not mentioned or explained is that numerous credible people have appeared repeatedly on the show. It is not necessary, and nobody is suggesting, that every participant be mentioned in every episode that they participated in. Just give them the mention they deserve. Lou Sander (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the reviews are largely bad/scornful/negative. But it's up to 3rd party reviewers publishing in reliable sources to provide us with positive reviews. We as editors can't come up with our own ideas (like naming all the important people appearing in the show) for how to make the show feel more credible. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We as editors have an obligation to insure that the article is written from a neutral point of view. IMHO, we have failed. Lou Sander (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)