Talk:Ancient astronauts

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ancient astronauts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Paranormal C‑class

	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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance

	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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative Views C‑class Mid‑importance

	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.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative Views articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Astronaut Creation Theory was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 March 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ancient astronauts. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

L/L Research was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 August 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ancient astronauts. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
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.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
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.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Acalycine, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29th March, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Archives

Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 1, Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 2, Talk:Ancient astronaut hypothesis/Archives/ 2, Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Artifact vs. artefact

There is a slight disagreement over the spelling of the word "artifact" and whether it's actually "artefact" - I assume it's a Britian vs. US spelling thing, since in America "artefact" with an "e" is not a word. There's no reason why this article should be either British or US spelling. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's (American) Dictionary says that artefact is a spelling variant of artifact, with no indication of a different meaning. The Oxford (British) Dictionary swaps the two words, giving artefact as the main word and artifact as the variant, again with no difference in meaning. So the next question is whether this topic can be considered American or British.

I think the topic is slightly more American, having more of its proponents identifying as American, and having more of an audience in the US than in the UK. So let's spell it artifact. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I hope that the editor who has been changing the spelling pays attention. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough and a little more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the American spelling. Huggums537 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well tag the article with American English, as much as I usually prefer British. --tronvillain (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture section

I think that we ought to remove the second paragraph of this section. It's an non-sourced list of things that I think requires more than a simple assertion that they're relevant to the topic. Further it seems like a proper citation of the material would amount to a lengthy list at the end of the article and not really add anything of substance to it.

Please vote. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While voting isn't exactly what we do, I agree that without some solid secondary sources, that paragraph needs to go. The Colavito text is fine for the preceding one, by my lights. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is so commonly used in pop culture that listing examples is piontless, anyway. I agree: ditch it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the section was essentially a duplicate of a paragraph from the previous section. --tronvillain (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it gone. I know we don't vote but consensus is nice and avoids arguments and edit wars. Ha, I was totally unaware that there was an article for in Pop-culture already. Nice catch! Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for being picky on !voting, but I've run in to the misunderstanding in the past. Thanks for this and have a good day! Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed no bad faith. Cheers! Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critics

In the content guideline Wikipedia: Fringe theories we have WP:DESCF, which says "It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." We should probably attempt to integrate the Critics section into the article. --tronvillain (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finishing a project today and probably tomorrow on another page. I'll put this on my list to get through next. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going to take a look at implementing this idea today and make it more readable. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finished integrating material in Critic section into main body of the article in what I think are the appropriate places. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa - that was quick! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am fortunate enough to have gads of free time at work, access to a quality internet connection, and basically no supervision. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. If I find the time I'll try and integrate some of the "further reading" material into the article too. --tronvillain (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll circle back in a day or two and take a look at that myself. Currently wrapped up in cleaning up the English in Parenting. It reads pretty awkwardly in a lot of spots. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times article

See [1] Doug Weller talk 19:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get a reference for this?

The following statement and tag are on this page:

Hypothesis proponents argue further that the biblical tree of knowledge is a metaphor for the human DNA sequence.^{[citation needed]}

And yes, I've read this a bunch of place on the internet but nothing that to my knowledge meets and encyclopedic standard. However, I hesitate to yank the statement because proponents definitely actually believe this stuff.

Thoughts? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind that statement is specific and extreme enough that without a reference it should be delete. Three years is long enough to wait. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Taking it out now. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fort

Charles Fort and "Book of the Damned" are listed in the infobox and the "proponents" section of this article right now, but there's no mention of him or of the book in the article itself. Further, The Book of the Damned article doesn't mention "ancient astronauts" at all, although it talks about UFOs. Without more content we should remove him from this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kolosimo

...wrote about this in mass market paperbacks before Von Däniken. Surely worth a mention.