Talk:Ancient Apocalypse

Interesting Source

Just came across this from the University of Alberta; seems like good context if nothing else. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

James Delingpole

How is the opinion of this person, known for his anti-scientific stances, relevant to this article? His only possible relation to this series is that he (also) holds fringe beliefs. Under what definition can he be considered a reliable source? Gue101 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The relevance is that his review shows that even anti-science fans of Hancock thought this series was bad. – Joe (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering that the series is a presentation of old-school fringe ideas in the style of Ancient Aliens, I would suspect that the intended audience for it had heart this kind of tale before. Is there any comment by sources on its lack of originality? Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The response from the Society for American Archaeology mentions that Hancocks arguments are just basically the same as Donnelly's and other silly people.

Here's a quote:

"His claim for an advanced, global civilization that existed during the Ice Age and was destroyed by comets is not new. This theory has been presented, debated, and refuted for at least 140 years. It dates to the publication of Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882) and Ragnarok: The Age of Ice and Gravel (1883) by Minnesota congressman Ignatius Donnelly."

Can't we use that instead of anti-science journalists? The "GH is basically Donnelly rehashed" argument was covered on almost every single source that reported on the Society for American Archaeology's response to GH. I can look up for specific sources commenting on that to add them. It'd be way more serious than quoting Delingpole's opinion. Gue101 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not an either–or thing. We can, and should, include all significant points of view. – Joe (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't but agree with this. What we shouldn't do is present a single opinion of a single crazy person as representative of all "right-wingers" or all "supporters of Graham Hancock" or any other broad generalization.

Will work on that. Gue101 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you've adressed why you think it's relevant, even though he thought the documentary was bad because it didn't give enough credit to fringe ideas. But, once more, why is James Delingpole a Reliable Source? Aren't we biased towards accepted science? I contend that he can't be considered a reliable source. I've seen editors in Wikipedia reject media critics because of their allegedly political position, yet we accept a fringe theorist? Why? EDIT: So, I've checked and The Spectator is not considered a RS in wikipedia, it states: "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG." Gue101 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

James Delingpole is a reliable source on what James Delingpole thinks, which is all we're using him for here. – Joe (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but his opinion shouldn't matter. He's not an archaeologist nor anything related to the subject. He's a journalist mainly known for being anti-science. So, again, why should we care about his fringe opinion if we're biased towards accepted science? His opinion is completely irrelevant. Otherwise, what's the criteria for including opinions and where should we draw the line? Should we start quoting people that make videos on YouTube about Ancient Aliens as well? They are reliable sources on what they themselves think. I've seen hundreds of people giving their opinion on this "docu"-series in irrelevant places. Should we include them as well? Their opinions hold as much weight as Delingpole's. Should I just post my opinion in a blog and quote it here? I'm a reliable source on what my opinion is, and at least I'm an actual Anthropologist. I don't know, including his opinion, to me, looks like a "carte blanche" to fill the article with opinions from irrelevant people.

I'd like to hear the input from someone else besides Joe. I have nothing against you, we just happen to disagree on this and it seems we won't reach a consensus. Gue101 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained why it's relevant. The majority if sources in the reception section weren't written by archaeologists, because we're talking about a television programme. For better or worse The Spectator is a major publication and though terrible for anything factual, it's a good source for the right-wing point of view on things, which is what it's used for here. I don't understand what you see as the problem in including it? Including an opinion in a reception section doesn't imply that it's correct or even worthy. I was glad to find this review because it simultaneously conveys what kind of circles Hancock appeals to nowadays (right-wing conspiracy theorists) and that even they thought this programme was rubbish. – Joe (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure they, as a whole, thought the program was rubbish, like you claim. From what I've read, most of the people that support GH felt the "documentary" was awesome. It's one of the most watched things right now on Netflix and I can't stop reading praises in Reddit, YouTube, and other trash media. There are lots of "articles" about how awesome the show is on questionable sources (which seems irrelevant for quoting opinions, since we're using The Spectator exactly for that).

Delingpole did think it was rubbish, on the basis that it wasn't anti-science enough. He thinks that the show didn't show enough of the evidence he claims that exists for GH's ideas (unlike every single other opinion I've read about it from GH's supporters, which find the "evidence" in the show very convincing) and that the producers did him a disservice by repeating "this is all terribly controversial", "Hancock keeps having to reassure us that pretty much everything he is saying is rejected by most archaeologists" which, to him, serves the purpose of making the viewer "reject the entire thesis" and that "the presentation invites such scepticism by continually reminding you that this is niche, crazy stuff that respectable ‘experts’ shun". The review is just a conspiracy theorist whining about the conspiracy itself. This is not the opinion of most of the people I've read (I admit it's the opinion of only some, the craziest among them). They think that GH's ideas are well substantiated hypothesis of a journalist, not claims of facts (they always love to point out that he's not an Archaeologist, but a Journalist, as if that somehow would prevent Hancock from being an amateur Archaeologist, and would exempt him from the need to engage in actual academic discourse), and that that serves to open up a debate inside (what they perceive to be) a dogmatic academia. You can even check GH's Wiki's talk page: it's filled with people arguing for these points.

I also feel like the inclusion of the quote serves more to portray them all as just silly people that complain about silly stuff (which I agree it's funny, not gonna lie) than to give the actual right-wing point of view on things. Not every single right-winger is a conspiracy theorist and anti-intellectual, just some of them (the MAGA sort); you seem to make no distinction between them and just group them together as "right-wing conspiracy theorists" (since you sometimes use "right-wing", without the "conspiracy-theorist" part, as if they were all the same thing), and I don't think that's neither an accurate nor fair portrayal. And in that context, to me, this quote serves to portray all right-wingers in the worst possible light to make fun of them (at least that's the impression I got, it made me chuckle). I'll try to find sources (seems they don't even have to be reliable sources if you're just looking for opinions! I could quote anything as long as the quote comes from someone relatively known!) on the actual opinion of right-wingers, not just the super silly ones, to complement (what I suspect is) just a fringe opinion on the issue.

I don't think it needs to be removed necessarily, but I do think it can't be the only "right-wing" opinion on the article. We either should complement that quote with others, preferably with more reliable sources (which I think is the best course of action and what I'll attempt) OR delete it. That quote, by itself, is misleading and not representative of all (probably not even most) GH fans.

But in any case, since it seems no one agrees with me (no one else seems interested enough to even comment), I'll just drop the issue for the time being. I wanted to reach a consensus, not to push my opinion.

As I just said, I'll try to complement this article with reliable sources, I just didn't have the time to do it this weekend (it was a busy weekend over here in Argentina and I'm currently exhausted!); the next weekend it's Christmas, so I'll probably do it after that. Cheers and happy Holidays! Gue101 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Not every single right-winger is a conspiracy theorist and anti-intellectual" Define right-winger. Right-wing politics is broad enough to include various types of cultural conservatism, a number of authoritarian ideologies, entire nationalist movements, and people who want to create theocracies. Your average Christian Democrat in the center-right has very little in common with an ultranationalist who wants to safeguard his nation's racial identity through repressive measures. Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

More to the point, Delingpole is definitely a conspiracy theorist and anti-intellectual. His wacky attacks on climate change show it. He is about as credible as David Icke. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

[1] Has already been discussed at some length on the talk page. Yes, and you are the only one who thinks that what Delingpole thinks is DUE. "Has been discussed" is not a reason to reinstate that text.

Why should we care that one crackpot thinks that another crackpot should not be called a crackpot? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I hadn't seen this conversation when I made the edit. But I agree with what everyone else has said. It doesn't really matter, in my view, whether it's immediately evident to readers that "writing for the Spectator" equates to "right-wing crankery". Delingpole's opinion here looks to me like the definition of WP:UNDUE. Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I reinstated the text because it has been there almost as long as the article has existed and as yet there's no consensus to remove it, as is the usual practice. As I have said, what I think is interesting about this review, and makes it worth including, is that a) it shows that Hancock increasingly appeals to right-wing crackpots (Delingpole describes himself as "a fan"); and b) even they didn't think the show was very good. That one crackpot thinks that another crackpot should not be called a crackpot is not what I get from reading the relevant paragraph. I fully agree with you that Delingpole is extremely fringe and not a credible source on anything factual, but I think our readers our better served by an appropriately-attributed description of his fringe views.

@Generalrelative: Could you explain a bit further why you consider it undue weight? Delingpole is not an archaeologist, but neither is Rebecca Onion, the Courrier International writer (presumably), or Stuart Heritage. The section is about the reception of a television series, not an academic text, so I think it's appropriate to summarise reviews from major newspapers (and The Spectator unfortunately is one). I've organised the reception section into expert reviews, then mainstream media reviews, then specific factual objections, and following WP:DUE Delingpole's fringe review is presented after all of these. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't surveyed everyone cited in the section, only saw that several of them were experts. My argument for WP:UNDUE was based on that misconception. Happy to defer to your judgement here. Generalrelative (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable addition, there is no reason "Reception" should be experts only, the audience is wider than that. What does Variety say? If there are WP:RS "Hey, this was a cool and fun show!" reviews, they could fit. Subsections are an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

He criticised the series' production for "continually reminding [the viewer] that this is niche, crazy stuff that respectable 'experts' shun" and for portraying Hancock as "slippery and unreliable". So, to make it more recognizable, why should we care that one slippery and unreliable person spreading crazy niche stuff thinks that another slippery and unreliable person spreading crazy niche stuff should not be called a slippery and unreliable person spreading crazy niche stuff?

At least, he should be marked as another anti-science propagandist to put his comments in perspective. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Article currently says "conservative commentator" and further details are at the linked article. Anti-science propagandist is... well, a bit mild, actually. Still, he has the might of The Spectator behind him, that makes him well-qualified to comment on TV-entertainment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Instead of simply repudiating his theories and portraying him as nothing more than a sensationalist, why not break down and repudiate his evidence with actual facts and evidence? 2600:1014:B1A3:D4FB:0:11:9FD2:2A01 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Because this talkpage is for discussing improvements to the Ancient Apocalypse WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

And because we should ignore IPs with only one edit posting to a comment virtually a year old. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I was in a benevolent non-bite-y mood. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ancient Apocalypse

@Ancientguy1: has recently created Draft:Ancient Apocalypse, which is an obvious Point of view (POV) fork. Ancientguy1, please read WP:POVFORK, then consider blanking that draft page or formally requesting deletion as WP:G7. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, the correction is not a POV, but a correction of the incorrect term pseudoscientific.

That word should not be used in this article as it’s misleading, inaccurate and inappropriate. Ancientguy1 (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a particular term is right or wrong, creating a complete new page is not the solution, per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NPOVFACT. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s been redirected, pseudoscientific is obviously correct. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Experts words taken out of context

Would it be good to quote (at least in part) one of the statements from the experts featured in the show about being out of context? Possibly actually making a subheading in "reception" for the reaction from those who appeared in the show to distinguish it from reception by those just viewing but not involved in the show? 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:B17D:1F44:E85D:EFF (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Son’s involvement as netflix staff

Someone should add the fact that Grahams son sean works for Netflix and may have had some involvement in the marketing and algorithm of this show.

https://grahamhancock.com/author/seanhancock/ 211.30.189.90 (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Different series with the same name?

Is this an entirely different series with the exact same name? https://www.zdf-studios.com/en/program-catalog/international/unscripted/history-biographies/ancient-apocalypse 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, It is a different series. Paul H. (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced lead

An admin recently reverted a sentence deletion and stated in the edit summary that the very strong accusatio is sourced elsewhere ib the article. That this makes it ok to be in the article lead.

Given the severity of the accusation, the ask is relatively simple. An admin should then source the sentence. It should be relatively quick to do so.

I won't be editing the article again due to the chilling effect having an Admin patrol this article has. I would be banned if I did so in a way an admin didn't like. I believe this runs counter to the open and bold spirit of WP.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I told you already this is covered by WP:LEAD. It’s sourced in the article. The lead thus doesn’t need sources. But you are really not happy with our policies and guidelines and going around complaining about them and claiming Wikipedia is left wing is not constructive, go somewhere more compatible with your b. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you didn't share that WP Lead article before. So your statement that you did is just wrong. I checked in my talk page too but couldnt find anything.

I dont know what you mean as my "b". I will assume its not an insult but it looks bad.

You are an admin here and this is one if your watchlisted articles as per your own admission. Me and any other new editors wont be able to be help if anything we say or ask is met witb hostility. Ill leave this article as its part of your domain. You win.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is also you. Not accusing you of anything and the b sounds like a typo is something.User talk:2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A couple things, IP: first of all, this is not ad hominem. Sometimes trying to be too specific or formal can undermine a point. Secondly, I would agree entirely with you if this were a throaway line in the body of the article. But leads are often not footnoted for ease of reading. Going through the body, it strikes me that there is ample support for the statement, but reasonable minds can certainly differ. If you can convince enough editors to achieve a consensus, then by all means make the change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)