Talk:Ancient astronauts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ancient astronaut hypothesis)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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".

Four groups
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited 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.

Science fiction topic vs Non scientific hypothesis vs Pseudoscientific hypothesis[edit]

Pseudoscience means the topic looks like scientific but actually not scientific and is false science. Pseudoscientific hypothesis or pseudoscientifc concept means the hypothesis or concept look scientific but actually not.

We would not say Harry Potter as pseudoscience because it is not classified as science, and it is clearly not look like any science.

Ancient astronaut clearly not like a science, and not like a valid science hypothesis or concept. It is clearly a science fiction topic or a non scientific hypothesis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

That's not what von Däniken says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean, who would mistake New arrivals, old encounters for science/history? The ancient astronauts narrative is predicated as based upon really existing archaeological evidence, it isn't predicated as fiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"Anunnaki" image[edit]

I have removed an image dubiously labelled as a representation of the Anunnaki and marked its page on Wikimedia Commons as likely factually inaccurate. As someone who knows something about Mesopotamian mythology, I know that there are currently no known extant Mesopotamian representations of the Anunnaki as a group. We do have representations of individual members of the Anunnaki, such as Enki or Inanna, but no depictions of them collectively. The image's page on the commons had no description or explanation. I looked at the website that this image came from and it appears to be a purveyor of the ancient astronaut hypothesis itself. The image appears frequently on conspiracy theory websites, but is conspicuously absent from academic writings about Mesopotamian religion. The image has clearly been drastically misinterpreted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not done (pmc) consensus clearly against DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 20:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ancient astronautsAncient aliens – Short version: Does not "astronaut" primarily refer to human spaceflight? Gaioa (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Long version: The concept of this pseudoscience is that extraterrestrials visited Earth long ago, but are extraterrestrials really "astronauts"? Although the word itself means "star-sailor" and is independent of species, it is almost exclusively used concerning humans. For instance, Laika is rarely considered an astronaut or kosmonaut, but simply "dog in space". Now, the subject matter of this article is by no means primarily ancient human spaceflight, but ancient extraterrestrial contact. And why should these beings be considered astronauts? I say rename to Ancient aliens, which I believe is a more common term anyway. Of course, this means that Ancient Aliens hafta be moved to Ancient Alien (TV series). However, if there's past wiki discussion on this topic, or if the sci. comm. considered the term "ancient astronauts" to be the most appropriate, or if the proponents themselves claim to talk about "ancient astronauts", then I will stand corrected :) Gaioa (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Move back to Ancient astronaut hypothesis as pseudo-science and non-encyclopaedic coverage of fringe theories. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Ancient astronaut hypothesis - The last discussion in December 2016 resulted in a move here but Ancient astronaut hypothesis seems a more appropriate move since the existence of ancient astronaut/aliens is only a hypothesis. --AussieLegend () 15:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't think sources discuss this hypothesis with the name "ancient aliens". Like it or not, "ancient astronauts" is the WP:common name for this idea. The debate on whether this article should move back to "Ancient astronaut hypothesis" should be debated separately. I would oppose that move too because we don't have Bigfoot hypothesis or Nessie hypothesis either. Our articles discuss Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and ancient astronauts as subjects that have been discussed in the written record. The intro sentence usually says that their existence is unlikely. — JFG talk 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per above, we use common names. As for whether to include "hypothesis", that's a separate discussion (which I will also oppose, as I did last year) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - again, per the above. The tide may be turning on this, as Mr. Von Daniken ages, but I still think "Ancient Astronauts" is the common name. I also agree that 'hypothesis' is a different discussion, but I oppose that as giving the topic a veneer of "sciencism" not found in the sources. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose on WP:common name grounds, which as explained at WP:common name, trump considerations of strict accuracy (e.g. Bill Clinton not "William Jefferson Clinton"). Also, because the term Astronaut is not joined at the hip to humanity as claimed. It has both more specific (American space travelers as opposed to Soviet or Russian, or professionals as opposed to passengers) and more general (any intelligent being traveling in space, intelligence level not specified) meanings. The Wikipedia article on Astronaut focuses primarily on the case of professional astronauts, and secondarily on human space travelers in general, as is appropriate for an encyclopedia article looking to convey in-depth knowledge quickly. Such focus is not a good guide to the full range of meanings of a word. Syrenka V (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    • BTW, there is even a children's book entitled Laika: Astronaut Dog, as well as a CNN photo essay on "Soviet astronaut dogs". A five-minute check of Google turned up these examples of the meaning "astronaut" has been claimed above not to have, a meaning which includes Laika. Syrenka V (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
We even have not-so-intelligent mousetronauts, worms and cockroaches in space, including a pregnant cockroach who delivered 33 off-Earth offspring. — JFG talk 02:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Ancient astronauts" is more common on Google Books than "Ancient aliens". Obviously not all of those are reliable sources, but reliable sources such as those used in the article do use the phrase to discuss this legend.[1][2][3] "Ancient astronaut hypothesis" is much less commonly used and so isn't an appropriate title when more WP:COMMONNAMEs are available.--Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per reasons stated by JFG and others above. Also see related archived discussion on the article name from July 2016 , although that mainly revolved around the "hypothesis" part. "Ancient Aliens" is a recent term and may someday become more common and wide-spread than "ancient astronauts", but that doesn't seem to be the case yet (based on a quick search on Google Scholar). --Jonas kork (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Artifact vs. artefact[edit]

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)

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)
I agree. I hope that the editor who has been changing the spelling pays attention. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Good enough and a little more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with the American spelling. Huggums537 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient astronauts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)