![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
[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)
one crackpot thinks that another crackpot should not be called a crackpotis 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.
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?
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
‘Ancient Apocalypse’ Documentary Series Renewed for Season 2 at Netflix by Kasey Moore, June 14, 2024, Whats in Netkix. Paul H. ( talk) 17:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this reversion. The section "Production and release" currently contains the line: "Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix" (of course, in scare quotes). However, this seems to be strongly implying that Sean Hancock was involved in the production or release, perhaps inappropriately, a claim that has been suggested wink-wink nudge-nudge in some op-eds as just asking questions, but not actually verified. So what do the sources actually say?
So on balance, we have a lot of juicy implications that Sean Hancock was involved in the project, and one explicit refutation that he was. Unless or until better sources arise, I think it's at best irrelevant trivia and at worse misleading rumor-laundering to include mention of Sean in the production section, although the fact he works at Netflix might of course be appropriate in another article, such as an expanded biography of his father. --Animalparty! ( talk) 16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
[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)
one crackpot thinks that another crackpot should not be called a crackpotis 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.
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?
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
‘Ancient Apocalypse’ Documentary Series Renewed for Season 2 at Netflix by Kasey Moore, June 14, 2024, Whats in Netkix. Paul H. ( talk) 17:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this reversion. The section "Production and release" currently contains the line: "Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix" (of course, in scare quotes). However, this seems to be strongly implying that Sean Hancock was involved in the production or release, perhaps inappropriately, a claim that has been suggested wink-wink nudge-nudge in some op-eds as just asking questions, but not actually verified. So what do the sources actually say?
So on balance, we have a lot of juicy implications that Sean Hancock was involved in the project, and one explicit refutation that he was. Unless or until better sources arise, I think it's at best irrelevant trivia and at worse misleading rumor-laundering to include mention of Sean in the production section, although the fact he works at Netflix might of course be appropriate in another article, such as an expanded biography of his father. --Animalparty! ( talk) 16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)