![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article describes the Nation of Islam as one of the groups "believ[ing] in ancient and present-day contact with extraterrestrial intelligence", and cites UFO religions by C.H Partridge as a source. [1] I have to question the validity of this, in that (at least from what I can see via Google books), Partridge doesn't explicitly state that the NoI see UFOs as of extraterrestrial origin - and as can be seen, Elijah Muhammad has expressly stated that the 'UFOs' were man-made:
No mention of astronauts, ancient or otherwise. No suggestion that the UFO/Mother Plane/Wheel of Ezekiel was of extraterrestrial origin. Since Partridge makes no mention of astronauts, and since Elijah Muhammad has stated the 'UFOs' were of terrestrial origin, I suggest that unless a source that explicitly states that the NoI believe in ancient astronauts, they should be excluded from the list. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not a person subscribes to these types of theories, I'm not sure the term "pseudo-scientific" can accurately describe the entirety of activities and research that proponents of such theories employ. In fact, many researchers use mathematics, analysis of material samples for content or age, utilize chemical and radiological testing, etc. I would say such undertakings are definitely "scientific" in nature. I'm saying this here in the talk section before removing the term in the article because I know if I do that, within five minutes, someone will just revert it and start an edit war over it. Please discuss why or why not the term should remain. G90025 ( talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The following RS works identify it as a pseudoscience. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I took the following two new entries from the list:
I don't think that these are two books by Matest Agrest. In my opinion it's more likely that "Astronauts of Yore" is an essay published in "On the track of discovery" - by whomever that anthology (?) might be edited. See the bibliography Agrest's son put together, concerning his father's paleocontact writings. If his father had written two books about the subject, he would have known (and others would, too). I know that Google Books lists On the track of discovery as a book by Agrest - I simply don't trust them, because bibliographic accuracy is not exactly the strength of Google Books. Does anybody have an actual copy of these purported texts/ books by Agrest? Like, something papery that was printed fifty years ago? :) Jonas kork ( talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC) PS: The Russian wikipedia article on Agrest doesn't mention any paleocontact books by Agrest, too. Jonas kork ( talk) 08:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have set up auto archiving on this talk page. If there are objections, revert my edit. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the word "theory" is used a number of places in the article, contrary to this discussion from the archives:
Shouldn't we substitute other words most of these places? -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The current title can be interpreted as a statement of existence of ancient astronauts. Our titles usually indicate whether a subject is doubtful, a hypothesis, or a conspiracy theory. We need some type of added word or rephrasing of the title to indicate the doubtful nature of this subject. Ancient astronaut hypothesis is a possibility. What think ye? -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
First time I've read this article, and it seems full of POV. E.g. the introduction calls it a 'pseudo-scientific', even though it has been and continues to be advocated by respectable scientists. E.g. was Carl Sagan a 'pseudo-scientist'? No mention of him in the info box, which ludicrously cites Erich von Däniken as an 'original proponent' (even though he was writing after Sagan, and many decades after the hypothesis actually originated).
No doubt some proponents of it (e.g. von Daniken) were or are pseudo-scientific but that doesn't mean the hypothesis is. Also it is closely related to theories such as Directed panspermia which are considered perfectly acceptable. Ben Finn ( talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "pseudo-scientific" bit from the beginning of the article. It is not an unbiased and objective view of a hypothesis some people subscribe to. An hypothesis is a essentially an assumption and needs no proof anyway, therefore cannot be "pseudo-scientific", regardless of the lack of evidence supporting the Ancient Alien hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFDC:C940:71E2:4C66:CFE3:41E5 ( talk) 02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten a section that was headed Alfred Russel Wallace, because Wallace never wrote anything about aliens - it refers to a modern writer, Craig Stanford, who thinks Wallace was unknowingly referring to aliens when Wallace posited a "creative intelligence" shaping evolution at times. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:17, 6 December 2014 (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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article describes the Nation of Islam as one of the groups "believ[ing] in ancient and present-day contact with extraterrestrial intelligence", and cites UFO religions by C.H Partridge as a source. [1] I have to question the validity of this, in that (at least from what I can see via Google books), Partridge doesn't explicitly state that the NoI see UFOs as of extraterrestrial origin - and as can be seen, Elijah Muhammad has expressly stated that the 'UFOs' were man-made:
No mention of astronauts, ancient or otherwise. No suggestion that the UFO/Mother Plane/Wheel of Ezekiel was of extraterrestrial origin. Since Partridge makes no mention of astronauts, and since Elijah Muhammad has stated the 'UFOs' were of terrestrial origin, I suggest that unless a source that explicitly states that the NoI believe in ancient astronauts, they should be excluded from the list. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not a person subscribes to these types of theories, I'm not sure the term "pseudo-scientific" can accurately describe the entirety of activities and research that proponents of such theories employ. In fact, many researchers use mathematics, analysis of material samples for content or age, utilize chemical and radiological testing, etc. I would say such undertakings are definitely "scientific" in nature. I'm saying this here in the talk section before removing the term in the article because I know if I do that, within five minutes, someone will just revert it and start an edit war over it. Please discuss why or why not the term should remain. G90025 ( talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The following RS works identify it as a pseudoscience. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I took the following two new entries from the list:
I don't think that these are two books by Matest Agrest. In my opinion it's more likely that "Astronauts of Yore" is an essay published in "On the track of discovery" - by whomever that anthology (?) might be edited. See the bibliography Agrest's son put together, concerning his father's paleocontact writings. If his father had written two books about the subject, he would have known (and others would, too). I know that Google Books lists On the track of discovery as a book by Agrest - I simply don't trust them, because bibliographic accuracy is not exactly the strength of Google Books. Does anybody have an actual copy of these purported texts/ books by Agrest? Like, something papery that was printed fifty years ago? :) Jonas kork ( talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC) PS: The Russian wikipedia article on Agrest doesn't mention any paleocontact books by Agrest, too. Jonas kork ( talk) 08:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I have set up auto archiving on this talk page. If there are objections, revert my edit. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice that the word "theory" is used a number of places in the article, contrary to this discussion from the archives:
Shouldn't we substitute other words most of these places? -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The current title can be interpreted as a statement of existence of ancient astronauts. Our titles usually indicate whether a subject is doubtful, a hypothesis, or a conspiracy theory. We need some type of added word or rephrasing of the title to indicate the doubtful nature of this subject. Ancient astronaut hypothesis is a possibility. What think ye? -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
First time I've read this article, and it seems full of POV. E.g. the introduction calls it a 'pseudo-scientific', even though it has been and continues to be advocated by respectable scientists. E.g. was Carl Sagan a 'pseudo-scientist'? No mention of him in the info box, which ludicrously cites Erich von Däniken as an 'original proponent' (even though he was writing after Sagan, and many decades after the hypothesis actually originated).
No doubt some proponents of it (e.g. von Daniken) were or are pseudo-scientific but that doesn't mean the hypothesis is. Also it is closely related to theories such as Directed panspermia which are considered perfectly acceptable. Ben Finn ( talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "pseudo-scientific" bit from the beginning of the article. It is not an unbiased and objective view of a hypothesis some people subscribe to. An hypothesis is a essentially an assumption and needs no proof anyway, therefore cannot be "pseudo-scientific", regardless of the lack of evidence supporting the Ancient Alien hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFDC:C940:71E2:4C66:CFE3:41E5 ( talk) 02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten a section that was headed Alfred Russel Wallace, because Wallace never wrote anything about aliens - it refers to a modern writer, Craig Stanford, who thinks Wallace was unknowingly referring to aliens when Wallace posited a "creative intelligence" shaping evolution at times. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)