Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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

New York Times article

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

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.

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)

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)

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexykayy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Fort mentions this idea on a number of occasions in his works. As usual though, his writing style is tongue in cheek and often only discusses it in passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.128.81 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Jason Colavito has some discussion of the Fort connection here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Boy, that's pretty feeble - a portion of one sentence saying "sometimes this earth has been visited by explorers" and nothing more? Either way, I've removed him and other names from the infobox - trying to single out a few as "originators" or "proponents" is unhelpful. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Peter Kolosimo

...wrote about this in mass market paperbacks before Von Däniken. Surely worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.128.81 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This article seems to credit Von Daniken with popularising it. Kolosimo has been almost completely written out. -2A01:4C8:1422:3E8D:10DF:631F:729B:F4FD (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

While the ancient astronaut theory as proposed by folks like Von Daniken is rightly regarded as pseudoscience by scientists I dont think that the ancient astronaut idea is regarded as being false by scientists, just not presently provable or disprovable via "scientific" means. For this reason only Van Danikan's theory should be called pseudoscience.80.111.40.28 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific" does not equal "regarded as being false". See Not even wrong.

Regardless, we follow the reliable sources and not our own deductions here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure but are scientists saying the idea is always pseudoscience? 80.111.40.28 (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The second source in the article, "Patrick Grim (1982), Philosophy of Science and Occult" [2] says the ancient astronauts hypothesis "fails to rank among the "scientifically" acceptable". If you want the article to say that Däniken's specific version is pseudoscience but the other versions are not, you need a reliable source saying that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The source does not say that, the source says "h1" (hypothesis 1 pressumably) "fails to rank among the "scientifically" acceptable" not that the ancient astronaut theory does not.80.111.40.28 (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

And what do you think h1 could be, given that the author links it to "Von Daniken's justifications?" Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you been following this conversation at all? 80.111.40.28 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Enough to know that your ideas neither comport with the reliable sources nor would improve the article. Happy holidays! Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The correct answer is no.80.111.40.28 (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, what does "following" mean here other than reading this section? If something else is required, then I certainly have not. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have the book and page 280 is explicit that h1 is the ancient astronaut hypothesis, the idea that any supposedly advanced knowledge demonstrated by pre-modern peoples* "was obtained from extraterrestrial beings who flew to earth in spaceships."

*Funny how these ancient astronaut theorists don't doubt inventions by Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, or other moderns living in European-derived cultures (usually white men), they just doubt that people of color could have stacked blocks, payed attention to the night sky, or do math.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

As usual, narrow “science-dictators” try to humiliate free thinkers with this wrong term. They should use another term that not excludes new theories in this way. There are so many holes in modern science that is shameful all this derogatory bath in new ideas. Again, the weak point of wiki is that non informed people can throw away long researched work, just cause society told them when they were young--88.3.90.63 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You are trying to use a Wikipedia Talk page for the purpose of preaching. That is not what they are for. Do that somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

As this has come up again: I think this is fair to categorize as pseudoscience or a Fringe theory. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the relevant Wikipedia article, pseudoscience is not an idea or belief, but an unscientific method of presenting or expressing that belief. If this is true, then there's no such thing as a pseudoscientific idea. That said, I aim to please, so I'm proposing the following alternative edit to the intro: "Ancient astronauts" (or "ancient aliens") refers to the idea, often presented in a pseudoscientific way...etc. BTW, has the existence of ancient astronauts/aliens ever been experimentally disproved, or only debated?~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We can only go by what RS expert sources say, even if it conflicts with our own personal understandings. See [3]. That said, it seems like "idea" was put in there as a more readable alternative to "doctrine". Other appropriate synonyms are belief, notion, conviction, etc. however "idea" looks to be the best fit. Re: has the existence of ancient astronauts/aliens ever been experimentally disproved..., in the case of extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the other way around. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou, LuckyLouie, for your calm and friendly reply to my post on what otherwise seems to be a rather tempestuous talk page! I should maybe clarify I'm not particularly a supporter of pseudoscience. I am a conditional (non-partisan) supporter of mainstream science as long as I continue to believe it is taking us down the right road. For me there are 5 types of information: 1. proven or observed fact (e.g. gravity), 2. probable theory (e.g. biological evolution), 3. improbable theory (yes, including ancient aliens!), and 4. obvious fiction or misrepresentations (mostly what writers produce as intentional fiction for entertainment or as deliberate hoaxes). I think the appropriate Wikipedia responses to most of these types are beyond dispute, but I'm cautions when it comes to what I think our response should be to improbable theory. I would currently characterize our response to the subject of this article as partisan disapproval. This is why I attempted an edit on Aug 10 to tone down Wikipedia's disapproval to a more non-partisan style. However, this was reverted by another editor claiming my edit amounted to support of what he/she referred to as the "fringe", a partisan term if ever there was one, and a total misrepresentation of my edit! Since that attempt was overturned, I've suggested the alternative edit that is in my Aug. 11 post that has the same intent of toning down Wikipedia's partisan opposition a bit. I've checked the website for Britannica Online to see if they ave an article on "ancient astronauts" and they do not. I'm therefore left to wonder if the subject really worthy of the attention of a "respectable" encyclopedia. Wikipedia seems to have the same desire for respectability, but also prides itself on providing articles to the public on subjects that other encyclopedias seem to be avoiding. So I now find myself pondering how we can define what are good subjects to cover and which are best avoided? Cheers to you also!~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not "partisan" or "disapproval" to state the current situation; it would be partisan to avoid such terminology because it sounds wrong. And certainly the topic is worthy of an article here, considering the vast literature that has been created around it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: Gravity and evolution are both scientific theories of equal status, and there is no such thing as a possible theory. There are facts underpinning both, and I suspect that gravity is more subtle than you think. The concept of ancient aliens is not a theory but a hypothesis and I've tidied that up (including the section on hypotheses). Unfortunately the distinction is blurred and we talk about "fringe theories" even when some aren't theories. We even have a policy discussing them, part of WP:NPOV, so it's clear that the community thinks such subjects are important. We also have guides as to what subjects should be covered, see WP:NOTABILITY and its accompanying pages - it boils down to what's reliable sources. The Britannica isn't a good arbiter. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For those who helped me out, it looks like we had a good productive session. Both the contents of this article and the Wikipedia perspective have been clarified enough that I need ask no more questions nor attempt any more edits. Thankyou to all!~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Chhattisgarh Cave Paintings

In keeping with wanting to make Wikipedia more diverse, could we add this cave painting from Chhattisgarh state in India? Thanks. Chantern15 (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Short description

The short description for this article used to be "Pseudo-scientific hypothesis" (28 c.), which has a problem: it does not say what is it about. So I changed it to "Hypothesis about past alien contacts" (36 c.), which defines it, but at the cost of leaving its rejection out. AndyTheGrump changed it again to "Pseudoscientific claims of alien contact" (40 c.), but this one left out that those are claims of past alien contacts. I think that properly defining what the claim is about takes precedence over its acceptance when writing a definition, but I'm open to proposals that may manage to do both things if someone can formulate one. Remember, there's a 40 characters limit. Cambalachero (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd always assumed that the purpose of a short description was to expand on, in a few words, what could already be understood from the title, to make the topic clearer. The title refers to 'ancient' astronauts, and as such already indicates it is referring to incidents alleged to have occurred in the past. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"Ancient astronauts" is not a descriptive title, but a made-up name to label this whole topic. As such, it needs to be defined. Remember that short descriptions appear in mobile article searches when users are trying to locate their desired article among many similarly-named ones; those may have never even heard about those claims and be puzzled about what "ancient astronauts" can be supposed to be.

What about "Dubious claims of past alien contact"? (36 c.) It would mundane terms instead of scientific ones, but I think it covers both things. Cambalachero (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SDLENGTH says the description needs to be short – no more than about 40 characters (but this can be slightly exceeded if necessary). "Pseudoscientific claims of past alien contact" would be 45 characters, and presumably ok. I don't like 'dubious', because to my mind it still makes the claims seem more credible than WP:RS suggests they are, and misses the point that they are often mispresented as serious scholarship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If 45 characters are acceptable, then this last proposal is fine by me. Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Since nobody else has commented, I'll make the change now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In popular culture

The "In popular culture" section has this sentence:

"Ancient Aliens is a television series that features proponents of the ancient astronaut hypothesis, such as Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, David Childress, Erich von Däniken, Steven M. Greer, and Nick Pope."

Usually those sections are about the way the topic is seen in fiction. "Ancient Aliens" is a science divulgation TV program. Not a reliable or credible one, but clearly not a work of fiction. Is it a valid inclusion in that section? The reference is not a good one, as it's the page at the TV channel, which does not give evidence of it being significant enough to be mentioned here; but we can find a better one. That is, if the sentence should be kept to begin with. Cambalachero (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the Ancient Aliens article; the show is all about ancient astronauts, and should definitely be mentioned here. There are plenty of sources in that article if you'd like to replace the current one. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Unidentified aluminum artifact that is not shown to the public looks exactly like those purses that Aliens are carrying around with them. Depicted in several different countries.

I think the unidentified aluminum object with a lot of Patina, looks an awful lot like those “Purses” that the aliens carry. I‘be seen many examples on your show. The Wedge of Aiud. Also, who says the Ark of the Covenant wasn’t taken back by the Aliens? 2600:1003:B009:10:9D4B:D7AF:13FA:2D99 (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Our show? We talk about TV programs, such as the "Ancient aliens" one, but we are not related to them in any way. For the official page, go here Cambalachero (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Reading through this it seems like it could use an editor, as the style seems off and less academic than the rest of the article. While sources are cited, language such as "this continent" implies either a direct copy/paste from source or lazy language. 142.229.82.122 (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Not only that but it reads like a personal essay, and it only really discusses one particular criticism of the ancient astronaut culture, one that could easily be worked into the text of the preceding sections. The one reference appears legit, but it's not enough to carry the entire paragraph. I would be ok with deleting that section entirely, and sprinkling mentions of the cultural imperialism/implicit racism critique at appropriate points in the main body of the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of pseudoscience is WP:DUE per WP:FRINGE, especially from high quality academic sources. Maybe a better idea is to improve the section? The source for the present content is [4], and a cut-down version that focuses the important points could be written, with other sourced criticism of the concept (I'm sure there's more) added. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

With an article on unambiguous fringe humbug, such as this one, a separate 'criticism' section is inappropriate. With such subjects, all content beyond a simple outline of what the proponents of pseudohistory/pseudoscience etc are proposing should be reliably-sourced 'criticism'. The article subject only meets Wikipedia notability requirements because such sources have criticised it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section moved to "overview" where it was massaged into a contextual discussion. These ideas are pretty well-cited besides this great paper used, but I think the author may have been a student as the connections were awkward, the prose was mean, and certain claims were not in the citation (I have never heard of ancient aliens being responsible for genocide of the Native North American tribes before... on the other hand, arguably the Mormons were practicing a form of this in the nineteenth century so perhaps a case can be made -- but, obviously, need a source). jps (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fixes, jps, you’re a busy fellow. (chime sounds), ah, you’re being paged to Talk:David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims#Overall_tone, catch you later. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Physiologically manipulated skull

Is there more information about people with physiologically manipulated skull, as in the photo from section "Religious and cultural practices"? I think it's quite uncommon thread. Eurohunter (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Tone and POV edits

The reversion of my edits were unwarranted.

A NPOV does not give undue weight to a single viewpoint. Saying that the theory has been associated with white supremacism is correct, but it's not correct to imply that it always is. It's also not neutral to ignore the fact that the theory is often applied to European cultures as well. Even the picture in the lede is in Europe. I can give many valid reasons why it is more commonly applied to non-European cultures but that likely wouldn't belong in the article.

"Such shows use a strategy known as 'fire-hosing’ to co-mingle fact with fiction in order to spread theories of an alternate past with tropes that follow white supremacist, nativist, imperialist, settler-colonial, and Christian Identity beliefs relevant to the past." For this sentence, it doesn't even reflect the source, it's just conclusions the editor drew.

"This re-structuring of the past serves to undercut the achievements and contributions of Indigenous people to human history that they have had and continue to have." is reminiscent of a personal reflective essay and is not encyclopedic tone. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 04:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edit (which you tried to edit-war back in once, which violated WP:BRD. But at least you are here now, which is good) deleted well-sourced criticism. If one of your changes was justified, you should try to reintroduce that one change in a non-WP:PROFRINGE way. But actually, their theories are sometimes applied to European cultures as well was not sourced to a WP:RS and therefore WP:OR and not allowed here. So, revert totally justified. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not mandatory, so moot point there. It's a stretch to call a single revert an edit war. As I said, the article already shows it being applied to European cultures, is that not enough to leave it in? If that really is the only concern, then only a partial revert would have been justified. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 10:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:WIKILAWYERING allows your behaviour to be regarded as flawless by those who want to see it that way. That is almost a given. Others are at fault, and others need to do it differently. Heard it all before, many times. Mostly, but not only from people who sympathetic to WP:FRINGE ideas. I am not interested in discussing that one sentence with you, I am just explaining to you why The reversion of my edits were unwarranted is an unfounded and far-fetched opinion. You should just try again, suggesting the minimum edit. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is over and you should start a new one with someone else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)