Talk:Ancient Aliens
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Slatersteven in topic Reception section: It's probably not aliens
 | 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. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ancient Aliens. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ancient Aliens at the Reference desk. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ancient Aliens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copied from User talk:Thosbsamsgom/Archive 1 edit
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ancient Aliens. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Binksternet: comments concerning edits made to this article should be made to this talk page, and not the user's talk page. apologies to Thosbsamsgom. Zentulku (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Right. The goal was to gradually rewrite the article so other users, potentially those whom would object, to respond with edits of their own. To find a balance between the "I hate this show is still on the air after twelve years" and those who actually watch and want to contribute. However, the first timid edits inspired WP:OWNBEHAVIOR—e.g. "whitewash... this stuff is all pseudoscience". I opted instead to rewrite the entire article and post. So, my apologies should be tendered to those who feel I should not have been so WP:BOLD. Since I posted the rewrite before it was entirely cooked, and still requires more work. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looking through the Talk archive, it appears enforcement behavior has been persistent since this article was created. @Thosbsamsgom: The rewrite is appreciated. BUT! There is an over-emphasis on criticism of the show IMHO, or is that the overwhelming trend among reputable sources? Also, why is the premise section detailing the gish-y tactics used by the show, or is that expected because Wiki? Fostrdv (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gishy? Have you seen the series? For serious—? As far as criticism section, I have not found any overwhelming positive reviews of the series to add. Positive reviews are almost always offered with the caveat that the episode and or series is (insert negative criticism here). If there were a positive review from a rep. source I would include it. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm unsure how to describe the series' premise and its idiosyncratic presentation in a neutral way without being hyper-specific. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd feel more comfortable citing reliable sources versus citing specific eps.? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Chris White documentary edit
Please add link to a documentary by Chris White. He is joined by Michael S. Heiser as an expert. The documentary is referenced on the page about Michael S. Heiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkMa-san (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- 1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg references the documentary website. I checked the previous talk about the subject and I think it is out of date. The accompanying website has been updated since 2013 and Jason Colavito doesn't seem to be a non-notable blogger any more. The documentary is also notable today as it has almost 9 million views. I think the documentary should be considered as included as a party debunking the claims of the series - SharkMa-san (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thosbsamsgom I know you follow this article. There is no talk if it's my monologue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkMa-san (talk • contribs) 21:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- this website/video is self-published. guidelines say those resources are unreliable regardless of how popular they may be. Zentulku (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- As an external link is acceptable. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia should start acknowledging big independent creators. SharkMa-san (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Propose a change: Wikipedia:Changing policies and guidelines Thosbsamsgom (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Not debunked ( yet ) edit
The Mystery of Nan Madol ( this episode contains verifyable observation not SERIOUSLY inspected by independent scientific community ) 95.102.176.87 (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nonsense, see Nan Madol. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Reception section: It's probably not aliens edit
There's a whole podcast dedicated to debunking various claims made by this show and talking about the real-world history behind it. It should have a place in the critical response section: https://solo.to/probsnotaliens
- THis is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)