![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Can we link to the Antikythera mechanism and wreck and the Baghdad Battery in the pilot's summary? serioushat 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Is Disinfo a reliable source? Neither the cited page, nor its Wikipedia article gives any impression of reliability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
They seem a bit heavy handed to me. My thought is we move it to the Critical reception section, and that we trim back a bit the linking to the book--this article is just about the show, and it's good to say that the show is based on the book, but unless a reliable source says something like "the show is based on a book that was discredited", linking the two passes to far towards WP:OR. What do others think? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 19:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Only the pilot episode is about Erich von Däniken book, not the whole series as the beginning text is implying. The are others who worked in the field besides him. Cyberia23 ( talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
History may be getting flack for shows like Ancient Aliens but I don't see what cutting down trees and hauling trucks over ice roads has to do with "History" either. Same goes for wrestling on SyFy and reality shows on MTV (Music Television). Perhaps a station should air what they were supposed to air from the get go then everyone would be happy. Cyberia23 ( talk) 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
At WP:SEEALSO, the guideline says, "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section", which is why I removed some redundant links from the "See also" section, ones which were already present in the article. Binksternet ( talk) 23:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The article currently contains the phrase: "... the pilot episode is "basically a rundown of Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods?",[8] a popular book about ancient astronauts that was thoroughly debunked in the 1970s.[9]"
First, a question: [8] is from Tafford Publishing, which is a vanity press. Is Beebe an acknowledged expert in the science or sociology, or some other area that lends authority to their assertions?
Second, this is pretty clearly SYNTH. The sources at 9 do not mention the TV show. So we have a statement from Beebe with essentially a one line plot summary (A), being linked to sources about how Daniken's book was discredited (B) which implies that the show is non-scientific. [C]. My thought is that Beebe's work can be used only if it's reliability can be established, and that we cannot used reviews or articles about Daniken's work here, unless those sources make a direct connection to the TV show (as Beebe does). Thoughts? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether Poffy's Movie Mania is a reliable source for anything but Poffy's opinions, but there is a review of the TV show hosted there at "Ancient Aliens: Proving you don't have to be abducted to be anal probed."
Poffy's website appears in one other Wikipedia article as a reference: List of fictitious atheists and agnostics. I don't do a lot of movie or TV show articles, so I don't know what review sites are considered reliable. This one is on target, but it does not appear to be quite as mainstream as required by WP. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Xm638 reverted my reversion of an IP who deleted the sentence from the lede stating that the show has been criticized as pseudoscience. I think that statement is pretty well sourced in the article, as since the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article's body, I think the statement should remain. As far as I know, there's been no praise of the show as being scientifically accurate, and if there is, I'd be glad to have that in the article. But barring that, I think the presentation is pretty neutral in terms of reflecting what sources we do have. What do others think? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 20:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I will level with you, how about we put something along the lines of "the show explores a number of controversial ideas and topics that some have criticized as pseudoscience." This is even pushing it, because there are people who strongly support it that are scientists and scholars, some are interviewed in the show, but I will attempt to get articles on this as well. And in the critical reception.... "Some reviewers..." That would be a good start in removing said bias. Like I said, give me a week or so to gather some good articles backing up things mentioned in the show. -- Xm638 ( talk) 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The 'Critical Review' section lets the misinformed feel that the reviews are in fact from reputable sources such as academics or historians however they are merely from television show reviewers in magazines or newspapers and as such, due to the nature of their career not experts in the field so to publish their 'higlighted' quotes of 'psedoscience' or 'pseudohistory' are misleading. When being on the history channel the issues are factual, and are raising valid points such as questions of who created Göbekli Tepe and who buried it and why, a place which doesn't fit in with conventional history. Speculation is how paradigm shifts occur.
-SM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.245.123 ( talk) 21:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I eliminated some of the material in this section as it was continuously negative. There was a distinct POV problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.15.54 ( talk) 06:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I am open to discuss the changes I have just made to this page... as you can see, a number of users are upset with the bias in this article and I have attempted to correct that by showing some common topics within the show, and also artificats that they have proposed as evidence to this theory. I also edited the Critical Reception too. -- Xm638 ( talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Text and references in this article must talk about the TV show. This article is not the place to argue for ancient aliens, so any reference that does not specifically discuss the show is not suitable, and text based on such references should be removed. Binksternet ( talk) 04:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The show is about evidence of ancient aliens, but the WP article is about the show, not about ancient aliens. We have an article on ancient aliens, and that's where sources covering ancient aliens belong. What belong here are source about the show. Now, if you can find some reliable sources that discuss the show's treatment of material directly, that would be fair game for this article. But if we take sources that do not mention the show directly, and use them here, we are in violation of WP:NOR. I hope you understand. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos is the publisher of "Legendary Times" and also the consulting producer for the show. I'm not sure this is an appropriately objective source of opinion as to the show's critical reception. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed the sentence 'on average' in the critical reception area as there was no reference as to how this 'average' was calculated. Is it the mean, the median or the range? or is it just subjective? which it possibly was.
Moreover the reference Re: pseduohistory was not in reference to this show. It was just someone referencing the concept of pseudohistory, which if this is the way to make articles... people could reference all sorts of different concepts.
NB on average reviews should be taken from the public and well known internet review sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.86.105 ( talk • contribs)
Seriously folks, this article is crammed with bias against this show. I looked at the edit history and you have editors labeling positive comments as junk, you all have removed countless edits that tries to help readers understand the creators' reasoning, you have been overly harsh with citing references for the show yet a number of comments against the show are uncited, there has been some great references put forth for the show that you all have removed saying they are unreliable. You say the review from Navia isn't specific enough to verify but you take someones word for what the Fritze article says.
I mean really folks, can we grow up here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.179.202 ( talk • contribs)
The article says the scientific community generally disaproves. Where is this cited? Or are users supposed to look at the Fritze article that says nothing about AA in the provided preview and figure this out? Your arrogance and unwillingness to open up to the positive reception this show has received isn't helping. From top to bottom I got the feeling the authors of this page were trying to disprove the show. Is this what the Wikipedia community wants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.179.202 ( talk • contribs)
Since there is a consensus that the Navia quote sourced to the producers own website doesn't meet our criteria as a source independent of the show, I have removed it. Surely somebody can dig up a truly independent and reliable source of praise for the show? TV Guide? Newsweek? Salon.com? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Xm638, thank you for being the only one to bring in intelligence and fairness to this article. I think you are a liberal in a sea of conservatives who are subtly twisting rules and guidelines to defeat you. we can only hope readers understand how misleading this article is and make their own judgement. The man always wins brother, you should leave it at that. They know who is really right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.179.202 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 August 2011
Forget them x, they can't even talk to you like a human being without shoving their twisted policies in your face. You have tried to be nice and even ask for help, look how they responded. Their responses speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.178.250 ( talk) 19:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this, just want to make a statement. The only things in this article that said anything other then strict info about the program, ie. run time, producer etc. were statements about how it has been criticized for this and that. As a person coming to wiki to learn, i immediately get the scene that the show is garbage and not worth my time, that everything in it is "pseudoscience" as stated in the first paraghraph. when i read the article it seems to be striped down to the point that no info can be brought forward other than "it is criticized as pseudoscience", my i ask: by whom? and why is that alone welcome? Why is it that i learn more from the disscusion then the article? i understand that there are laws here, i know i am ignorant of those laws, i hope i am not braking them at this moment! but i must say that if following the rules correctly led to an article like this then i am sad. good work to everyone trying so hard, i know these things are a rabbit hole. be happy friends. jp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.180.8 ( talk) 02:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a POV problem here. I've eliminated some of the outrageously negative stuff. There are some "editors" with an axe to grind. This isn't the place for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.15.54 ( talk) 06:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression
I have nominated this article to be checked for NPOV and have also flagged it with the hopes of people making some apprpriate changes; this article is a disgrace in terms of bias. The evidence brought up in the show is not given a chance, and negative views are thrown in whenever possible. The fact that we're bringing in reception about a South Park episode to slant the article says it all. -- 184.4.192.4 ( talk) 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I spent quite some time cleaning up the this article to be consistent with other television articles, MOS:TV, {{ Episode list}} etc, updating the infobox, adding a more consistent form of series overview table, fixing field use in the episode table, adding some general references, referencing an upcoming episode that was unsourced and adding some sourced episodes. [2] Today I saw that the episode numbers and column headings had been changed and some deliberately deleted text had been reinserted, [3] so I felt it best to make some notes here, especially since I did much the same only 3 weeks ago, [4] and it was all reverted without any real explanation as to why. [5]
|EpisodeNumber=
" for the first column and "|EpisodeNumber2=
" for the second. {{
Episode list}} automatically creates an anchor to the contents of "|EpisodeNumber=
", preceded by "ep". For "|EpisodeNumber=1
" in this article, the wikilink is
Ancient Aliens#ep1. Using formats such as "Pilot (1)" complicates the link, turning it into
Ancient Aliens#epPilot (1). Because of the linking, each use of "|EpisodeNumber=
" must have a unique identifier, and so the column is usually used for the overall series number. "|EpisodeNumber2=
" is usually used for the episode number within the season, since most articles use a straight numbering format (1, 2, 3, 4 etc) and these are repeated each season, making them non-unique. It's for this reason that {{
Episode list}} doesn't generate anchors for "|EpisodeNumber2=
". There's a desire to use 3 digit numbering in this article, but that's easily incorporated while still making this article consistent with other television lists.|RTitle=
" field is used for this, and I've used it for the unaired episodes.
[6]I don't have any real problems with the season episode numbering used in the article, but it's worth pointing out that we aren't obliged to use the same numbering used by external sites. Reliable sources such as TV Guide and MSN don't use 3 digit numbering, so it's certainly not consistently used. [8] [9] -- AussieLegend ( talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
|EpisodeNumber=
" say, "A number representing the episode's order in the series. For example, the first episode would be 1 or 01, and so on". So yes, there is a correct way to use the field. --
AussieLegend (
talk) 09:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
full text of news sources
|
---|
|
Re this edit, the stories do exist, and are generally available via content research databases such as LexisNexis. As a courtesy I have posted the full text above. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
After some serious complaints about neutrality of Ancient Aliens article on this talk page I decided to remove parts that are in obvious conflict with Wikipedia rules. Immediately afterwards my edit was reverted. Even after a few successive attempts I was forcibly deleted. It is disturbing to see what a few so called editors can do to harm Wikipedia neutrality and how many articles they influenced, and it is going on despite nomination of this article to be checked for NPOV (applied five months ago). Shame on Wikipedia and its so called "editors". Bravo for History Channel's uncensored program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.67.167 ( talk) 06:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's stop this nonsense once and for all. It's a very popular show. It is however complete and utter nonsense. An inquisitive eight year old could wotk that out. I would suggest, by all means refer to its popularity, but make sure there is a link to a subject such as 'dumbing down' , or 'cynical media exploitation of retards'. Like many , trash television like this simply makes me angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.41.38 ( talk) 04:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is clearly skewed. I understand scientific views take prominence, but to completely ignore the other side is a fallacy. In almost every section of this article the editors have found some way to take a jab at the show, but the "proposed evidence" is never discussed. I understand there is an ancient astronaut page, but to make readers go there to learn of this "evidence" and then try and relate that to what is presented in the show is a mess. This article needs to at least have a section summarizing what is presented in the show and what they claim the evidence is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.216.186 ( talk) 13:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, like the others who have posted here before me: Why are we using an article by Fritze that was published before the series started airing? Why are we mentioning comments on a South Park related article? Why does the statement about the theories in this show "not being accepted by the scientific community" not need to be cited? This article needs SERIOUS refining, and not from the biased editors that have already edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.216.186 ( talk) 13:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
ShortSummary
field is to provide a "short 100–300 word summary of the episode".
[10] It's not the place, nor is there room to provide a detailed list of the "evidence" presented in the program. I don't see how what is presented in the article is not presented neutrally. --
AussieLegend (
talk) 11:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)@Xm638: I agree with the others. There is no NPOV problem, and the Southpark episode is relevant. This article is not a platform for von Daniken and his ideas, but about a TV show. We write articles based on what reliable sources say, and assign weight based on prominence in reliable sources. Also, you failure to assume good faith are very problematic, as is your labeling of any editor that disagrees with you as biased and "against this article". Your objecions were not based on WP policies and reliable sources. At this point, there is nothing left to discuss. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states:
“ | The program had 1.676 million viewers in late October 2010,[10] 2.034M in mid-December (for the "Unexplained Structures" episode) and in late January 2011 it had 1.309M viewers. | ” |
Is that good or bad? Without any context, these numbers are meaningless. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 03:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article:
In September 2012 Chris White and Dr. Michael Hesier released a 3 hour free online documentary attempting to debunk many of the claims of the show. In addition they have a companion website that thoroughly documents the references used in their attempts to debunk particular claims.
The cites are as follows:
One of the cites is by Jason Colavito, a non-notable blogger. It fails as a reliable source. Three of the cites are written by Chris White, including the small promo piece published by Skeptics. I would like to see this video and website given at least a little notice by reliable third party observers before we insert it, and when we do it should only be referenced to the third party cite, not to White's debunking website.
Note that Chris White is a Christian who believes in the Flood myth, Noah's Ark and the existence of giant beings called Nephilim, so his debunking of Ancient Aliens requires a strong dose of counter-debunking. Binksternet ( talk) 00:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article at least make note that criticism exists? I see that there is a link to the debunking documentary at the bottom of the page, but seriously why does the article lack a criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.236.102 ( talk) 13:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Genre should say documentary. These people actually claim that Earth was visited by extraterrestrials etc. It doesn't matter if they're wrong. What matters is that they sincerely make these claims, and are not acting. If they were acting it would be a mockumentary. Jiiimbooh ( talk) 08:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
There has been a manipulated map in the episode "Ancient Aliens and the Secret Code". http://oxymorus.ismywebsite.com/?p=51
Is this worth noting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.162.12 ( talk) 09:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The Wikingerburgen sites were manipulated, too. link. El Ingles ( talk) 16:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Why aren't the regular 'experts' listed? There should be more than just Tsoukalos and Childress. There is Jason Martell and a few others who prop up this show, but not listed anywhere in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.147.88 ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ancient Aliens actually presents real facts and events. Its just the subject matter and commentary are highly speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by College Watch ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jiimmooh, labeling it 'pseduo-doc' does seem to degrading the show; I think just 'paranormal', as it was before, is enough. While I'll admit, some episodes are sort of out there, others do indeed use real events/locations such as the constellations, the ancient Pyramids and the Nazca lines. Many of the commentators are highly educated scientific trained individuals. Often times they can't prove their theories, but they are highly rational and thought provoking. As an open-minded viewer, and have watched quite a few episodes, they never insist on forcing anyone to believe them, they are citing the anomalies of our ancient past and building theories (often logical). College Watch ( talk) 04:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? In what way isn't this a documentary? Remember, many documentaries have errors and occasional even out-right fabrications. It seems someone wishes their POV to become more than opinion. Pseudo-doc is hardly appropriate and it is amazing that there is even an argument for it. 75.48.15.54 ( talk) 06:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The use of these words in the article is not encyclopedic, and is a strong indication of its non-neutral point of view. Lou Sander ( talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
What some regard as clever justification, others regard as execreble bullshit. Present company excepted, of course. Lou Sander ( talk) 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Is the "I'm not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens" meme worth mentioning in the "In Popular Culture" section? Iapetus ( talk) 12:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor just made some rather extensive changes to the article, having to do with episodes and schedules. There were no edit summaries, and no explanations on this page. PLEASE, if you are going to do big things, let the rest of us know what you are doing. Lou Sander ( talk) 20:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
the futon critic > how official are they, are they on the same level as the production company of AA and the broadcast channel in that of H2, remembering these 2 bodies share information when an deal is done to broadcast production... it quite possible it was wrong from the start... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.202.92 ( talk) 13:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi All,
Not sure if I am doing this correctly but we will see. I have never even thought of editing a Wiki before but I happened on this one last night and actually ended up removing two words. Those words being "crazy" and "mockumentary".
Anyway, it seems to me that the entire Reception section is little more than a hit and run job and adds nothing to the page. It should be either removed in it's entirety or at least balanced with less OP-ED and/or more counter point.
I have no illusions on what AA is but it seems to me that articles should be as neutral and detached as a dictionary not an Internet review by show critics. Phrases like "inexorable bullshit" could be used to describe pretty much everything on television and should not be directed at particular shows w/o some counter balance.
-Jim
71.181.21.40 ( talk) 13:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a sperate page for the seasons of Ancient Aliens. — 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello.
Am curious to why this article states that there is 11 seasons? The only website that says there are 11 seasons (other than wikipedia) is IMdB.com. The home network (History.ca and H2 channel in Canada)states that this is the 9th season. Isn't the network that the show is produced and made by more accurate than other sources? Just wondering where the 2 extra seasons come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenNik ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ancient Aliens. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
IMHO it should be replaced with the word 'participants' which is clearly neutral. Dougweller ( talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet made an edit related to this still-open question and I reverted it, referring to the discussion here. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Split proposed due to size of the episodes in the main article. — 2601:183:4000:D57A:E532:F558:2BA1:2602 ( talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I just recently finished both Seasons of Ancient Aliens and when I came to the wikipedia I was expecting a bit more information regarding the publication than what was currently present. I'd like to suggest a menu subsection wherein the prominent commentators/researchers/professors are listed, with hyperlinks to their respective websites/projects.
I think another good subsection would be a compendium of all the multiple researchers, both auxiliary and prominent, with links to their respective works and publications.
The reason I think this is important, is because the other day when describing this documentary to someone, I was explaining that it was a very impressive compendium of research from various and seemingly unrelated fields that came together to present such compelling arguments. When going through the episodes we are repeatedly introduced to specialists in archaeology, geology, climatology, oceanography, topography, egyptology, history, philosophy, religion, linguistics, and on and on.
In my opinion, literally drawing out these contributions would help accurately and objectively express just how massive this undertaking was.
68.101.53.46 ( talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Respectfully,
Blake Macon, Georgia
i agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.185.98 ( talk) 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
(
edit conflict):We don't normally do that for television series. This is not an article about 'ancient aliens' - we have one at
Ancient astronauts, this needs to stick to the television series. What this article is actually missing is any third party commentary (meeting our criteria at
WP:IRS) on the series. That's unfortunate although it might be that there wasn't much.
Dougweller (
talk) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of at least mentioning the authors and researchers appearing on each episode and that could be perfectly made on the respective episode description.. With this people can come here, find the authors and search for their books and work online. Adding links to their websites or wikipedia pages would be a plus. Little by little we can do this task, actually now I am watching one episode I will start adding the authors I see on this episode -- Dendrotech ( talk) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I think detailing the researchers that have participated/contributed to this television series would be an excellent idea. Also, to respond to Dougweller's comment, I see your point that this article is about the television series, but seeing as how the television series is about the topic of Ancient Aliens, I think at least providing the names of the researchers who appeared on the television series, along with some sort of brief listing/description as to some their contributions to the topic or study of Ancient Aliens could be really helpful. This wouldn't be biographical info. about the authors/researchers, nor would it be a duplication of the Ancient astronauts article that provides more information about the topic itself, rather it would be just their names and titles of any books they've published or links to any websites or wikipedia pages about them, if any exist. It would be sort of like a list of references for each episode of the Ancient Aliens television series. I haven't checked to see if the Proponents section of the Ancient astronauts article has all of the references associated with each the researchers/authors who appeared on this TV series, but either way, does anyone else think it could be helpful to link this information to each episode? I realize it's not typically done, but this is a documentary-type TV series so it might be justifiable if several people thought it would be helpful.
To respond to Nuujinn's comment about non-notable authors, I think the researchers would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia content under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability because these researchers/authors are notable on the subject area of Ancient Aliens. That's why these researchers/authors were included in the TV series. They've contributed to the topic and therefore their commentary is important, just like on Court TV News, attorneys are asked onto the shows to comment on legal cases, or when politicians, political analysts and political campaign advisors are invited onto CNN for their commentary on political news. In each instance, the commentators have knowledge and experience about the topics, and that's why they're qualified to provide interpretations and share information. Seeing as how the topic of extraterrestrials can be portrayed in an unfair and biased manner, and even sometimes passed off as psedoscience, I think that having a listing of the researchers that appeared in this TV series, along with the titles of some of their past research could help further Wikipedians expand on this topic because then they'd already have a list of references to go on. Crice88 ( talk) 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Of the roughly 160 researchers/commentators who have appeared through Season 4, about 55 have their own articles in Wikipedia. Of them, this group seems to have significant applicable expertise in the areas presented, with little professional involvement in fringe topics:
The article currently features mocking negative commentary by such marginally-qualified non-notables as Ronald H. Fritze, Brad Lockwood, Alex Knapp, Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Brian Switek, and Ramsey Isler (who refers to "interviews with people of dubious authority"!). One wonders if there might be a bit of undue weight given to the criticisms. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
-- If the nobodies in the 'critical commentary' can be included, then for balance people who appeared on the show should be included. 51.6.100.40 ( talk) 11:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ancient astronauts which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ancient Aliens has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request: Please add the 2 most recent episodes of Season 12. Reliable source: Log into Hulu.com - search for Ancient Aliens - Select Season 12 - Scroll down to episodes 11 & 12 to view Aired date and summary on the left side of the screen.
12911"Voices of the Gods"July 21, 2017
13012"The Animal Agenda"July 28, 2017
}}
Pepita96 (
talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Can anybody add a section about the availability on DVD?
There seems to be much confusion about the numbering of the seasons on DVD, i.e. DVD box titled season 8 is containing season 10.
I conclude that from season 8 Alien transports, Mysterious structures, Mysterious devices and Faces of the Gods are missing on the DVD boxes.
These 4 episodes are labeled Ancient Aliens:Special Edition when repeated on the History Channel. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:100F:B01F:9762:F3A5:2939:8054:30A9 (
talk) 11:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Seasons 1-4 are correct.
Box titled season 5 also contains 8 episodes from season 6.
Box titled season 6 contains the remaining 3 from season 6, season 7 complete, and 5 episodes from season 8.
Box titled season 7 contains season 9 complete.
Box titled season 8 contains season 10 complete.
Box titled season 9 contains season 11 complete.
Box titled season 10 contains season 12 complete.
Box titled season 11 contains 13 episodes from season 13 (the alien phenomenon and return to Mars missing).
Box titled season 12 contains season 14 complete.
Box titled season 13 contains 10 episodes from season 15 (Nan Madol and Skinwalker Ranch missing) and 6 episodes from season 16.
Box titled season 14 contains 4 episodes from season 16 and 7 episodes from season 17.
Greetings, Rob — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.128.87.125 (
talk) 13:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
In Season 11 it jumps from episode 110 to 112. You are missing episode 111. Ro Viz ( talk) 13:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Can we link to the Antikythera mechanism and wreck and the Baghdad Battery in the pilot's summary? serioushat 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Is Disinfo a reliable source? Neither the cited page, nor its Wikipedia article gives any impression of reliability. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 02:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
They seem a bit heavy handed to me. My thought is we move it to the Critical reception section, and that we trim back a bit the linking to the book--this article is just about the show, and it's good to say that the show is based on the book, but unless a reliable source says something like "the show is based on a book that was discredited", linking the two passes to far towards WP:OR. What do others think? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 19:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Only the pilot episode is about Erich von Däniken book, not the whole series as the beginning text is implying. The are others who worked in the field besides him. Cyberia23 ( talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
History may be getting flack for shows like Ancient Aliens but I don't see what cutting down trees and hauling trucks over ice roads has to do with "History" either. Same goes for wrestling on SyFy and reality shows on MTV (Music Television). Perhaps a station should air what they were supposed to air from the get go then everyone would be happy. Cyberia23 ( talk) 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
At WP:SEEALSO, the guideline says, "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section", which is why I removed some redundant links from the "See also" section, ones which were already present in the article. Binksternet ( talk) 23:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The article currently contains the phrase: "... the pilot episode is "basically a rundown of Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods?",[8] a popular book about ancient astronauts that was thoroughly debunked in the 1970s.[9]"
First, a question: [8] is from Tafford Publishing, which is a vanity press. Is Beebe an acknowledged expert in the science or sociology, or some other area that lends authority to their assertions?
Second, this is pretty clearly SYNTH. The sources at 9 do not mention the TV show. So we have a statement from Beebe with essentially a one line plot summary (A), being linked to sources about how Daniken's book was discredited (B) which implies that the show is non-scientific. [C]. My thought is that Beebe's work can be used only if it's reliability can be established, and that we cannot used reviews or articles about Daniken's work here, unless those sources make a direct connection to the TV show (as Beebe does). Thoughts? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether Poffy's Movie Mania is a reliable source for anything but Poffy's opinions, but there is a review of the TV show hosted there at "Ancient Aliens: Proving you don't have to be abducted to be anal probed."
Poffy's website appears in one other Wikipedia article as a reference: List of fictitious atheists and agnostics. I don't do a lot of movie or TV show articles, so I don't know what review sites are considered reliable. This one is on target, but it does not appear to be quite as mainstream as required by WP. Binksternet ( talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Xm638 reverted my reversion of an IP who deleted the sentence from the lede stating that the show has been criticized as pseudoscience. I think that statement is pretty well sourced in the article, as since the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article's body, I think the statement should remain. As far as I know, there's been no praise of the show as being scientifically accurate, and if there is, I'd be glad to have that in the article. But barring that, I think the presentation is pretty neutral in terms of reflecting what sources we do have. What do others think? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 20:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I will level with you, how about we put something along the lines of "the show explores a number of controversial ideas and topics that some have criticized as pseudoscience." This is even pushing it, because there are people who strongly support it that are scientists and scholars, some are interviewed in the show, but I will attempt to get articles on this as well. And in the critical reception.... "Some reviewers..." That would be a good start in removing said bias. Like I said, give me a week or so to gather some good articles backing up things mentioned in the show. -- Xm638 ( talk) 21:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The 'Critical Review' section lets the misinformed feel that the reviews are in fact from reputable sources such as academics or historians however they are merely from television show reviewers in magazines or newspapers and as such, due to the nature of their career not experts in the field so to publish their 'higlighted' quotes of 'psedoscience' or 'pseudohistory' are misleading. When being on the history channel the issues are factual, and are raising valid points such as questions of who created Göbekli Tepe and who buried it and why, a place which doesn't fit in with conventional history. Speculation is how paradigm shifts occur.
-SM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.245.123 ( talk) 21:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I eliminated some of the material in this section as it was continuously negative. There was a distinct POV problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.15.54 ( talk) 06:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I am open to discuss the changes I have just made to this page... as you can see, a number of users are upset with the bias in this article and I have attempted to correct that by showing some common topics within the show, and also artificats that they have proposed as evidence to this theory. I also edited the Critical Reception too. -- Xm638 ( talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Text and references in this article must talk about the TV show. This article is not the place to argue for ancient aliens, so any reference that does not specifically discuss the show is not suitable, and text based on such references should be removed. Binksternet ( talk) 04:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The show is about evidence of ancient aliens, but the WP article is about the show, not about ancient aliens. We have an article on ancient aliens, and that's where sources covering ancient aliens belong. What belong here are source about the show. Now, if you can find some reliable sources that discuss the show's treatment of material directly, that would be fair game for this article. But if we take sources that do not mention the show directly, and use them here, we are in violation of WP:NOR. I hope you understand. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos is the publisher of "Legendary Times" and also the consulting producer for the show. I'm not sure this is an appropriately objective source of opinion as to the show's critical reception. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 01:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed the sentence 'on average' in the critical reception area as there was no reference as to how this 'average' was calculated. Is it the mean, the median or the range? or is it just subjective? which it possibly was.
Moreover the reference Re: pseduohistory was not in reference to this show. It was just someone referencing the concept of pseudohistory, which if this is the way to make articles... people could reference all sorts of different concepts.
NB on average reviews should be taken from the public and well known internet review sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.86.105 ( talk • contribs)
Seriously folks, this article is crammed with bias against this show. I looked at the edit history and you have editors labeling positive comments as junk, you all have removed countless edits that tries to help readers understand the creators' reasoning, you have been overly harsh with citing references for the show yet a number of comments against the show are uncited, there has been some great references put forth for the show that you all have removed saying they are unreliable. You say the review from Navia isn't specific enough to verify but you take someones word for what the Fritze article says.
I mean really folks, can we grow up here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.179.202 ( talk • contribs)
The article says the scientific community generally disaproves. Where is this cited? Or are users supposed to look at the Fritze article that says nothing about AA in the provided preview and figure this out? Your arrogance and unwillingness to open up to the positive reception this show has received isn't helping. From top to bottom I got the feeling the authors of this page were trying to disprove the show. Is this what the Wikipedia community wants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.179.202 ( talk • contribs)
Since there is a consensus that the Navia quote sourced to the producers own website doesn't meet our criteria as a source independent of the show, I have removed it. Surely somebody can dig up a truly independent and reliable source of praise for the show? TV Guide? Newsweek? Salon.com? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 00:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Xm638, thank you for being the only one to bring in intelligence and fairness to this article. I think you are a liberal in a sea of conservatives who are subtly twisting rules and guidelines to defeat you. we can only hope readers understand how misleading this article is and make their own judgement. The man always wins brother, you should leave it at that. They know who is really right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.179.202 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 August 2011
Forget them x, they can't even talk to you like a human being without shoving their twisted policies in your face. You have tried to be nice and even ask for help, look how they responded. Their responses speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.178.250 ( talk) 19:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this, just want to make a statement. The only things in this article that said anything other then strict info about the program, ie. run time, producer etc. were statements about how it has been criticized for this and that. As a person coming to wiki to learn, i immediately get the scene that the show is garbage and not worth my time, that everything in it is "pseudoscience" as stated in the first paraghraph. when i read the article it seems to be striped down to the point that no info can be brought forward other than "it is criticized as pseudoscience", my i ask: by whom? and why is that alone welcome? Why is it that i learn more from the disscusion then the article? i understand that there are laws here, i know i am ignorant of those laws, i hope i am not braking them at this moment! but i must say that if following the rules correctly led to an article like this then i am sad. good work to everyone trying so hard, i know these things are a rabbit hole. be happy friends. jp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.180.8 ( talk) 02:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a POV problem here. I've eliminated some of the outrageously negative stuff. There are some "editors" with an axe to grind. This isn't the place for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.15.54 ( talk) 06:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression
I have nominated this article to be checked for NPOV and have also flagged it with the hopes of people making some apprpriate changes; this article is a disgrace in terms of bias. The evidence brought up in the show is not given a chance, and negative views are thrown in whenever possible. The fact that we're bringing in reception about a South Park episode to slant the article says it all. -- 184.4.192.4 ( talk) 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I spent quite some time cleaning up the this article to be consistent with other television articles, MOS:TV, {{ Episode list}} etc, updating the infobox, adding a more consistent form of series overview table, fixing field use in the episode table, adding some general references, referencing an upcoming episode that was unsourced and adding some sourced episodes. [2] Today I saw that the episode numbers and column headings had been changed and some deliberately deleted text had been reinserted, [3] so I felt it best to make some notes here, especially since I did much the same only 3 weeks ago, [4] and it was all reverted without any real explanation as to why. [5]
|EpisodeNumber=
" for the first column and "|EpisodeNumber2=
" for the second. {{
Episode list}} automatically creates an anchor to the contents of "|EpisodeNumber=
", preceded by "ep". For "|EpisodeNumber=1
" in this article, the wikilink is
Ancient Aliens#ep1. Using formats such as "Pilot (1)" complicates the link, turning it into
Ancient Aliens#epPilot (1). Because of the linking, each use of "|EpisodeNumber=
" must have a unique identifier, and so the column is usually used for the overall series number. "|EpisodeNumber2=
" is usually used for the episode number within the season, since most articles use a straight numbering format (1, 2, 3, 4 etc) and these are repeated each season, making them non-unique. It's for this reason that {{
Episode list}} doesn't generate anchors for "|EpisodeNumber2=
". There's a desire to use 3 digit numbering in this article, but that's easily incorporated while still making this article consistent with other television lists.|RTitle=
" field is used for this, and I've used it for the unaired episodes.
[6]I don't have any real problems with the season episode numbering used in the article, but it's worth pointing out that we aren't obliged to use the same numbering used by external sites. Reliable sources such as TV Guide and MSN don't use 3 digit numbering, so it's certainly not consistently used. [8] [9] -- AussieLegend ( talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
|EpisodeNumber=
" say, "A number representing the episode's order in the series. For example, the first episode would be 1 or 01, and so on". So yes, there is a correct way to use the field. --
AussieLegend (
talk) 09:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
full text of news sources
|
---|
|
Re this edit, the stories do exist, and are generally available via content research databases such as LexisNexis. As a courtesy I have posted the full text above. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
After some serious complaints about neutrality of Ancient Aliens article on this talk page I decided to remove parts that are in obvious conflict with Wikipedia rules. Immediately afterwards my edit was reverted. Even after a few successive attempts I was forcibly deleted. It is disturbing to see what a few so called editors can do to harm Wikipedia neutrality and how many articles they influenced, and it is going on despite nomination of this article to be checked for NPOV (applied five months ago). Shame on Wikipedia and its so called "editors". Bravo for History Channel's uncensored program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.67.167 ( talk) 06:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Let's stop this nonsense once and for all. It's a very popular show. It is however complete and utter nonsense. An inquisitive eight year old could wotk that out. I would suggest, by all means refer to its popularity, but make sure there is a link to a subject such as 'dumbing down' , or 'cynical media exploitation of retards'. Like many , trash television like this simply makes me angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.41.38 ( talk) 04:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is clearly skewed. I understand scientific views take prominence, but to completely ignore the other side is a fallacy. In almost every section of this article the editors have found some way to take a jab at the show, but the "proposed evidence" is never discussed. I understand there is an ancient astronaut page, but to make readers go there to learn of this "evidence" and then try and relate that to what is presented in the show is a mess. This article needs to at least have a section summarizing what is presented in the show and what they claim the evidence is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.216.186 ( talk) 13:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, like the others who have posted here before me: Why are we using an article by Fritze that was published before the series started airing? Why are we mentioning comments on a South Park related article? Why does the statement about the theories in this show "not being accepted by the scientific community" not need to be cited? This article needs SERIOUS refining, and not from the biased editors that have already edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.216.186 ( talk) 13:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
ShortSummary
field is to provide a "short 100–300 word summary of the episode".
[10] It's not the place, nor is there room to provide a detailed list of the "evidence" presented in the program. I don't see how what is presented in the article is not presented neutrally. --
AussieLegend (
talk) 11:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)@Xm638: I agree with the others. There is no NPOV problem, and the Southpark episode is relevant. This article is not a platform for von Daniken and his ideas, but about a TV show. We write articles based on what reliable sources say, and assign weight based on prominence in reliable sources. Also, you failure to assume good faith are very problematic, as is your labeling of any editor that disagrees with you as biased and "against this article". Your objecions were not based on WP policies and reliable sources. At this point, there is nothing left to discuss. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states:
“ | The program had 1.676 million viewers in late October 2010,[10] 2.034M in mid-December (for the "Unexplained Structures" episode) and in late January 2011 it had 1.309M viewers. | ” |
Is that good or bad? Without any context, these numbers are meaningless. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 03:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article:
In September 2012 Chris White and Dr. Michael Hesier released a 3 hour free online documentary attempting to debunk many of the claims of the show. In addition they have a companion website that thoroughly documents the references used in their attempts to debunk particular claims.
The cites are as follows:
One of the cites is by Jason Colavito, a non-notable blogger. It fails as a reliable source. Three of the cites are written by Chris White, including the small promo piece published by Skeptics. I would like to see this video and website given at least a little notice by reliable third party observers before we insert it, and when we do it should only be referenced to the third party cite, not to White's debunking website.
Note that Chris White is a Christian who believes in the Flood myth, Noah's Ark and the existence of giant beings called Nephilim, so his debunking of Ancient Aliens requires a strong dose of counter-debunking. Binksternet ( talk) 00:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article at least make note that criticism exists? I see that there is a link to the debunking documentary at the bottom of the page, but seriously why does the article lack a criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.236.102 ( talk) 13:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Genre should say documentary. These people actually claim that Earth was visited by extraterrestrials etc. It doesn't matter if they're wrong. What matters is that they sincerely make these claims, and are not acting. If they were acting it would be a mockumentary. Jiiimbooh ( talk) 08:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
There has been a manipulated map in the episode "Ancient Aliens and the Secret Code". http://oxymorus.ismywebsite.com/?p=51
Is this worth noting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.162.12 ( talk) 09:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The Wikingerburgen sites were manipulated, too. link. El Ingles ( talk) 16:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Why aren't the regular 'experts' listed? There should be more than just Tsoukalos and Childress. There is Jason Martell and a few others who prop up this show, but not listed anywhere in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.147.88 ( talk) 21:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ancient Aliens actually presents real facts and events. Its just the subject matter and commentary are highly speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by College Watch ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jiimmooh, labeling it 'pseduo-doc' does seem to degrading the show; I think just 'paranormal', as it was before, is enough. While I'll admit, some episodes are sort of out there, others do indeed use real events/locations such as the constellations, the ancient Pyramids and the Nazca lines. Many of the commentators are highly educated scientific trained individuals. Often times they can't prove their theories, but they are highly rational and thought provoking. As an open-minded viewer, and have watched quite a few episodes, they never insist on forcing anyone to believe them, they are citing the anomalies of our ancient past and building theories (often logical). College Watch ( talk) 04:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? In what way isn't this a documentary? Remember, many documentaries have errors and occasional even out-right fabrications. It seems someone wishes their POV to become more than opinion. Pseudo-doc is hardly appropriate and it is amazing that there is even an argument for it. 75.48.15.54 ( talk) 06:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The use of these words in the article is not encyclopedic, and is a strong indication of its non-neutral point of view. Lou Sander ( talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
What some regard as clever justification, others regard as execreble bullshit. Present company excepted, of course. Lou Sander ( talk) 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Is the "I'm not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens" meme worth mentioning in the "In Popular Culture" section? Iapetus ( talk) 12:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor just made some rather extensive changes to the article, having to do with episodes and schedules. There were no edit summaries, and no explanations on this page. PLEASE, if you are going to do big things, let the rest of us know what you are doing. Lou Sander ( talk) 20:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
the futon critic > how official are they, are they on the same level as the production company of AA and the broadcast channel in that of H2, remembering these 2 bodies share information when an deal is done to broadcast production... it quite possible it was wrong from the start... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.202.92 ( talk) 13:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi All,
Not sure if I am doing this correctly but we will see. I have never even thought of editing a Wiki before but I happened on this one last night and actually ended up removing two words. Those words being "crazy" and "mockumentary".
Anyway, it seems to me that the entire Reception section is little more than a hit and run job and adds nothing to the page. It should be either removed in it's entirety or at least balanced with less OP-ED and/or more counter point.
I have no illusions on what AA is but it seems to me that articles should be as neutral and detached as a dictionary not an Internet review by show critics. Phrases like "inexorable bullshit" could be used to describe pretty much everything on television and should not be directed at particular shows w/o some counter balance.
-Jim
71.181.21.40 ( talk) 13:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a sperate page for the seasons of Ancient Aliens. — 73.47.37.131 ( talk) 18:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello.
Am curious to why this article states that there is 11 seasons? The only website that says there are 11 seasons (other than wikipedia) is IMdB.com. The home network (History.ca and H2 channel in Canada)states that this is the 9th season. Isn't the network that the show is produced and made by more accurate than other sources? Just wondering where the 2 extra seasons come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenNik ( talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ancient Aliens. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
IMHO it should be replaced with the word 'participants' which is clearly neutral. Dougweller ( talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet made an edit related to this still-open question and I reverted it, referring to the discussion here. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Split proposed due to size of the episodes in the main article. — 2601:183:4000:D57A:E532:F558:2BA1:2602 ( talk) 21:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I just recently finished both Seasons of Ancient Aliens and when I came to the wikipedia I was expecting a bit more information regarding the publication than what was currently present. I'd like to suggest a menu subsection wherein the prominent commentators/researchers/professors are listed, with hyperlinks to their respective websites/projects.
I think another good subsection would be a compendium of all the multiple researchers, both auxiliary and prominent, with links to their respective works and publications.
The reason I think this is important, is because the other day when describing this documentary to someone, I was explaining that it was a very impressive compendium of research from various and seemingly unrelated fields that came together to present such compelling arguments. When going through the episodes we are repeatedly introduced to specialists in archaeology, geology, climatology, oceanography, topography, egyptology, history, philosophy, religion, linguistics, and on and on.
In my opinion, literally drawing out these contributions would help accurately and objectively express just how massive this undertaking was.
68.101.53.46 ( talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Respectfully,
Blake Macon, Georgia
i agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.185.98 ( talk) 11:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
(
edit conflict):We don't normally do that for television series. This is not an article about 'ancient aliens' - we have one at
Ancient astronauts, this needs to stick to the television series. What this article is actually missing is any third party commentary (meeting our criteria at
WP:IRS) on the series. That's unfortunate although it might be that there wasn't much.
Dougweller (
talk) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of at least mentioning the authors and researchers appearing on each episode and that could be perfectly made on the respective episode description.. With this people can come here, find the authors and search for their books and work online. Adding links to their websites or wikipedia pages would be a plus. Little by little we can do this task, actually now I am watching one episode I will start adding the authors I see on this episode -- Dendrotech ( talk) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I think detailing the researchers that have participated/contributed to this television series would be an excellent idea. Also, to respond to Dougweller's comment, I see your point that this article is about the television series, but seeing as how the television series is about the topic of Ancient Aliens, I think at least providing the names of the researchers who appeared on the television series, along with some sort of brief listing/description as to some their contributions to the topic or study of Ancient Aliens could be really helpful. This wouldn't be biographical info. about the authors/researchers, nor would it be a duplication of the Ancient astronauts article that provides more information about the topic itself, rather it would be just their names and titles of any books they've published or links to any websites or wikipedia pages about them, if any exist. It would be sort of like a list of references for each episode of the Ancient Aliens television series. I haven't checked to see if the Proponents section of the Ancient astronauts article has all of the references associated with each the researchers/authors who appeared on this TV series, but either way, does anyone else think it could be helpful to link this information to each episode? I realize it's not typically done, but this is a documentary-type TV series so it might be justifiable if several people thought it would be helpful.
To respond to Nuujinn's comment about non-notable authors, I think the researchers would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia content under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability because these researchers/authors are notable on the subject area of Ancient Aliens. That's why these researchers/authors were included in the TV series. They've contributed to the topic and therefore their commentary is important, just like on Court TV News, attorneys are asked onto the shows to comment on legal cases, or when politicians, political analysts and political campaign advisors are invited onto CNN for their commentary on political news. In each instance, the commentators have knowledge and experience about the topics, and that's why they're qualified to provide interpretations and share information. Seeing as how the topic of extraterrestrials can be portrayed in an unfair and biased manner, and even sometimes passed off as psedoscience, I think that having a listing of the researchers that appeared in this TV series, along with the titles of some of their past research could help further Wikipedians expand on this topic because then they'd already have a list of references to go on. Crice88 ( talk) 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Of the roughly 160 researchers/commentators who have appeared through Season 4, about 55 have their own articles in Wikipedia. Of them, this group seems to have significant applicable expertise in the areas presented, with little professional involvement in fringe topics:
The article currently features mocking negative commentary by such marginally-qualified non-notables as Ronald H. Fritze, Brad Lockwood, Alex Knapp, Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Brian Switek, and Ramsey Isler (who refers to "interviews with people of dubious authority"!). One wonders if there might be a bit of undue weight given to the criticisms. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
-- If the nobodies in the 'critical commentary' can be included, then for balance people who appeared on the show should be included. 51.6.100.40 ( talk) 11:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ancient astronauts which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ancient Aliens has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request: Please add the 2 most recent episodes of Season 12. Reliable source: Log into Hulu.com - search for Ancient Aliens - Select Season 12 - Scroll down to episodes 11 & 12 to view Aired date and summary on the left side of the screen.
12911"Voices of the Gods"July 21, 2017
13012"The Animal Agenda"July 28, 2017
}}
Pepita96 (
talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Can anybody add a section about the availability on DVD?
There seems to be much confusion about the numbering of the seasons on DVD, i.e. DVD box titled season 8 is containing season 10.
I conclude that from season 8 Alien transports, Mysterious structures, Mysterious devices and Faces of the Gods are missing on the DVD boxes.
These 4 episodes are labeled Ancient Aliens:Special Edition when repeated on the History Channel. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:100F:B01F:9762:F3A5:2939:8054:30A9 (
talk) 11:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Seasons 1-4 are correct.
Box titled season 5 also contains 8 episodes from season 6.
Box titled season 6 contains the remaining 3 from season 6, season 7 complete, and 5 episodes from season 8.
Box titled season 7 contains season 9 complete.
Box titled season 8 contains season 10 complete.
Box titled season 9 contains season 11 complete.
Box titled season 10 contains season 12 complete.
Box titled season 11 contains 13 episodes from season 13 (the alien phenomenon and return to Mars missing).
Box titled season 12 contains season 14 complete.
Box titled season 13 contains 10 episodes from season 15 (Nan Madol and Skinwalker Ranch missing) and 6 episodes from season 16.
Box titled season 14 contains 4 episodes from season 16 and 7 episodes from season 17.
Greetings, Rob — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.128.87.125 (
talk) 13:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
In Season 11 it jumps from episode 110 to 112. You are missing episode 111. Ro Viz ( talk) 13:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)