Talk:Ancient Aliens/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ancient Aliens. 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)

Good to know. Any objection to me moving and recasting? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved the criticism section - usually the list of episodes are the last thing in a TV article. It's fine the way it is, honestly I'm not going to spend my weekend arguing over this show or people like DougWeller. I have better things to do. Thanks for helping out. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes. The only thing I've ever been very unhappy with has been descriptions of episodes that referred to disputed subjects in an npov way (ie a reader might not realise that they were disputed) and I haven't been very involved in editing this article. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a reader will get the idea that the subject matter of the show in general is disputed. The episode descriptions explain what each episode is about and that's all they need to do. To further indicate that every single statement that lies within those descriptions is disputed may be going overboard and would show too much negative bias to the subject matter than it already has. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's purposeful, the introduction of the idea that the subject matter in general is disputed. The show is frequently criticized as one of several that tarnish the once-good reputation of the History Channel. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the criticism described in the body of the article should be mentioned in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 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)

Per WP:LEAD, the criticism of the show should be summarized in the lede--the lede represents a summary of the entire contents of the article. I have no objection to doing that, but I think the level of detail in there now is excessive, esp. for a lede. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 19 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)

Fair enough, although personally I would like to focus on the POV and OR issues before we turn to MOS. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:35, 20 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)

Since the core of the show revolves around von Däniken's beliefs as published in his books, primarily his best-seller Chariot of the Gods?, it is very relevant to the reader to know that the book was debunked by respected religious scholars and mainstream scientists. Yes, indeed, the television program is non-scientific, and it is important that our readers should know this. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? Trying to build a web that implies the show is non-scientific is not our job here. Our job is to use reliable sources back statements about the subject. If reliable sources say that it is non-scientific, we say that, and if an RS makes a connection between the show and the book, we can say that, but the mesh that is evolving here is not appropriate, at least in my opinion. The best way to determine if there is a meaningful relationship between the book (which I read as a teenager, and I'm an old fart) and the show is to find a reliable source that makes that connection for us. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:12, 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)

Looks like an SPS of this guy, he doesn't seem to have any particular expertise. seems like he has a beef with IMDB, I wouldn't use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:19, 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)

"the show has been criticized". Mostly incorrect. The article you provide criticizes the ideas this show is based behind, not this show. Note that it is written before the first series even aired. You are bringing in a very negative and biased view to this article. I don't mind having that in the critical reception, but citing it in the overview isn't doing anything. And to be fair, this show is very well receieved by the UFO community and has been proved to have a lot of scientific fact reguarding their ideas on Hy-Brasil, pyramids, artificats from Egypt. I will try to edit this page up next week, if I get some time, with fair opinions of both sides. --Xm638 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The pseudoscience criticism is valid and supported, and should remain in the lead. The show itself has been criticized by normal scientists, not by UFO hunters and alien astronaut seekers. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And this benefits the overview how? The article cited is much more relevant on the "ancient astronaut" page, it has nothing to do with the show itself! You are showing bias in your own comment, the show is all about suggesting different alternatives to mainstream science; the one paper you keep bringing up criticizes, not the show, but various ideas the show is based behind. Ancient Aliens admits to be speculative at times, this topic is controversial; no news there! I'd rather the first paragraph just give an overview of what the show is trying to do, and let the reader make up his/her own mind. All I ask is that we try to show both sides, the amount of bias currently shown is straight up ridiculous. --Xm638 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There are four references for the critical reception section, and the first three deal directly with the show. I think you have a valid point regarding the fourth, since it does not treat the show directly, and I shall remove that sentence. But that does not change my position on the question of the sentence in the lede. Please review WP:NPOV, we are not supposed to present both sides, but rather neutrally present what reliable sources say. If you can find sources praising the science of the show, by all mean bring them here. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have no problem with the reviews that are mentioned, and I have no problem talking about how the ideas brought up in this show are not accepted by mainstream scientists. But, this show is not about saying "this is fact, accept it.", it is about different possibilities! If you watch any of the episodes, they suggest different routes to many ideas, by trying to act like the show is scientifically incorrect right from the get go is not doing justice to what the show is about (which is what the lede is all about!!). Ancient Aliens in a way is about defying what is widely accepted and suggesting different alternatives! I will bring forward articles that prove some of the things mentioned in this show hopefully next week.... if I don't get around to it, I ask others to try and do this as well; this show is not being done justice by this article. I know a good number of things mentioned in the episode "The Evidence" have very well written papers and documentation that back up what they say.

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)

We can play with the wording later, I'm interested in what sources you can turn up from the UFO crowd. That's fair game, as they are the audience the show is oriented towards. But we will have to observe due weight, and keep in mind whatever one's belief, this is a fringe area in terms of science. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored the Fritze article named "On the Perils and Pleasures of Confronting Pseudohistory". Fritze criticizes the History Channel for airing "the credulous documentary Ancient Aliens" in long rant against pseudoscience. By "credulous" he means too quick to believe, too gullible. He is saying that Ancient Aliens puts pseudoscience on the air without examining it very thoroughly. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote? I can't get to the full text of that article...--Nuujinn (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It would take me scheduling another visit to the local university library. Until then I just have my brief notes and these sentences: "Why does the History Channel air the credulous documentary Ancient Aliens and by doing so give credence to the ideas of Erik von Däniken?" Fritze writes about the popular attraction to pseudoscience, then says, "Periodically it revives, as evidenced by the Ancient Aliens documentary that appeared on the History Channel in the spring of 2009. In a pop culture with a short memory and a voracious appetite, aliens and pyramids and lost civilizations are recycled like fashions." Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@Xm638. I must disagree. The ideas contained in this show are not "controversial" within science. There is no debate found in academic journals regarding UFOs and aliens and pyramids and "lost" civilizations. Such speculation is ignored. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the ideas are not controversial within science, but we do not limit ourselves to what science says. If reliable sources cover reception of the show outside of the scientific community, we can cover that, keeping mind that this is not mainstream science. Binksternet, since you have a quote from your notes, that seems find to me and sufficiently verified. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

'Kay, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 31 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)

Anyone can follow see what the sources are, and if there are academic reviews, by all means add them with the appropriate citations. It's a TV show, so reviewers of TV shows are appropriate sources. I don't really agree that we can assume that everything that appears on the history channel is factual. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:53, 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)

There's no POV issue, except in deleting cited content. If you think there should be more positive content, then find some positive reviews. Sometimes it's the case that there just aren't any though, despite best efforts. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:03, 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)

youtube is not generally an RS, so I have removed that bit. In regard to the other ref, please complete the citation indicating where you found it, otherwise it will have to be removed as well. We need to know whence the reference came; web link, or journal/magazine/newspaper name, date, and page number, that sort of thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would still like to reference the interview, I just thought Youtube would be most reliable since you can actually hear it, rather than me pointing to the radio's website or something. What is generally most acceptable when citing a FM radio interview? Also, which other reference are you talking about? I'll try my best! --Xm638 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 'bias' in the article, that accusation goes two ways. I was shocked by the bias for the show, so I worked to put other views into it. When the article has opposing views including the well-documented accusation of promoting pseudoscience, it is in keeping with the guideline at WP:NPOV. If "upset" editors who object to such neutrality take out or reduce the impact of the opposition, the article will fail the NPOV guideline. One faulty way to present criticism is to try and buffer it with favorable reviews. I would rather see the critical reviews given a solid platform instead something like "Even though everyone I know likes the show, a few odd ducks have complained about it" or similar waffling. Let the criticism be what it is. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to bring a balanced side to it too, I'm not calling for the negative views to be removed, I've never said that. But the pseudoscience issue was just randomly thrown in and made the article very misleading, it had a very negative overtone to it. I feel the article is very balanced as it stands right now, and am happy.... if it stays... haha. --Xm638 (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: 'bias' and 'balance': we're not obligated to present offbeat fringe theories as equally credible with the status quo. Read over WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do we even have this page? If you don't want to explain what they present and try to help readers understand what the show is about you might as well delete it. --Xm638 (talk) 15:44, 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)

EDIT: I just put it back in, but changed the first sentence because I agree it seemed like it was trying to debate; but everything mentioned are things you see in the show. This is a very beneficial paragraph because I think it will give readers a very good idea about things they would see in a typical episode, which will help make sense about how the show works in terms of ideas relating to found artifacts etc. --Xm638 (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, what you need to do is find sources that say THE TV SHOW had such and such an idea presented, not just start describing general ideas about ancient astronauts and pyramids, etc. The TV show has to be in all of your sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet, it's not appropriate to use the article to try to bolster the credibility of fringe and conspiracy theories. And it's especially inappropriate to use books and web pages ("extraterrestrial community"?) about aliens and pyramids that are not WP:RS reliable sources of fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This show has a lot to do with the extraterrestrial community, if you deem all of this innapropriate how do you expect to present what this show is about? The things I referenced are mentioned exactly in the show as references to their own ideas, why can we not try to explain what this show is attempting to do? Might as well not even have this page! What you are saying is absolutely ridiculous, you want to say that only scientific fact can be presented in this article, and the show is all about showing different ideas and alternatives to that. If you think it's ok to pollute this article with your bias, I guess there's nothing I can do to stop that, which is extremely unfortunate and sad. This page is nothing more than a promotion page for the scientific community, so that other readers can instantly think this show has no solid base to it, which it does, but you want to tell me that unless some scientists say it I can't bring it to the article. Pathetic. I can tell you didn't even study the links I provided, because the website was a collaboration of information presented from the show. Thanks a lot! --Xm638 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the topics themselves, go to the various topic pages, certainly starting with Ancient astronauts. This article is not about the topic, it is about the TV show, like who appeared on it, any bloopers, when it aired, who produced it, what people said about it... stuff like that. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, and the information I provided is information you would find watching the TV show. You say the links I provided don't mention the show, I cited a website that is a collaboration of information collected from the show. You are being unreasonable. Why aren't each of the episodes descriptions cited? If we are going to call elements of the show psuedoscience, why can't we take a look at said elements that are in the show? You are abusing your reputation by not listening to me, and I speak for the fans of this show and UFO Community who are extremely displeased with this article. Instead of trying to level with me, you erase things that I spent hours studying and researching, believing you are correct, and tell me I am raising hell with an edit war. --Xm638 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I put that edit warring warning on your user talk page so that you would heed the warning and not be blocked. I don't want you to stop working on this article.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television), the episodes don't have to be cited if they just have a brief description of what their content was, and if there is no dispute about them. Also at that guideline is a description of how a "Themes" section could be brought into the article, perhaps beyond whatever appears in "Production" and "Reception". Such a section would hold information about what the producers wanted to put across, what they drew on for inspiration, etc. The text would need to be well-sourced to prevent original research. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything you just listed is exactly what I brought forward, except I didn't call it "Themes". The books cited are books cited clearly in the show, the websites cited contain information from the show, I explained how they looked at those things and how they pointed to it as evidence. I feel like everything I wrote was completely valid, justified and cited well. I don't feel like I need to cite a source that says the show looks at a certain book, because the books are mentioned clearly in the episodes, they interview a lot of the authors! This is similar logic to the descriptions of the show not being cited, so I don't see why the section needed to be suddenly removed, the only thing I see is that the section name needs to be renamed "Themes". --Xm638 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure you understand what Binksternet is trying to tell you. You can't create a "themes" section using your own research. You'd first need a respected third-party source (for examples, see The_Wire#Themes) like the Washington Post, New York Times, Variety, etc. to publish their analysis about the show, what they feel the producers were trying to accomplish, what books they found mentioned in the show, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying at all! It's not my own research first of all, it's exactly what the show references. Two, your logic there is pointless because if we were to go by what YOU think is respected, there's going to be an extremely one sided view on this article... oh wait, there is already! This show is based around things that a lot of people don't think are credible... that's what this show is about, to try and prove people otherwise! If we can't discuss what is presented in the show and their reasoning, the article doesn't make sense! It is just a place for people to talk negatively about it and reference psuedoscience!!! Talking about what is referenced in the show is exactly the same thing as telling the reader what is in each episode. As long as everyone agrees it's ok, that's what I've been told! --Xm638 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits removed here [1] were, in my opinion, properly removed. This is not an appropriate place to put forward evidence for ancient aliens. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Then all references to the show containing elements of psuedoscience should be removed, and that should be handled also on the ancient astronaut page. If we're going to talk about the elements being psuedoscience, we need to look into the elements that are proposed by the show, in the show; not discussing one view and expecting readers to go to another page to look at the positive side. Some things I mentioned are things they have proposed only on the show! It's not all that mainstream in relation to the common ancient astronaut beliefs, such as the planes... that was something they did a lot of interviewing/investigating on via the show. --Xm638 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to put forward evidence on ancient aliens? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE SHOW IS ABOUT!!! All I was doing was showing evidence that is proposed ON THE SHOW, so we can contrast with the claims that it's pseudoscience! Is that so much to ask? Apparently so, and that is why I, and many others, are saying this article is riddled with bias. --Xm638 (talk) 18:55, 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)

No, I don't. Because I am asking to do something similar to what has already been done in the show descriptions... but that's ok, I'm done. Lesson learned about trying to balance an article on Wikipedia, won't make the same mistake again. --Xm638 (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's really simple. You find an article in TV Guide (or something similar) that says Kevin Burns wanted to tap into the popular conception of ancient astronauts, and he wanted to make a fun show that was not so constrained by hard science. (I'm making this up!) Then you find an online interview of Giorgio A. Tsoukalos that says he drew on various themes that were in Chariots of the Gods including ancient images of spaceship-like conveyances and spacesuit-like body covering. Stuff like that. It always has to be about the TV show, though; that's the requirement we keep hammering away at. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I could bring forward many interviews, but they are from the UFO Community and will be deemed innapropriate. So like I said, I'm done. Can't do much when everyone wants to shut out one side of the story because they think it's not acceptable. --Xm638 (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with interviews with people interested in UFOs, so long as the interview addresses the show directly and is published in a reliable source such as a newspaper, magazine or book. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:24, 3 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)

You don't? Wow, what a surprise! Not even going to begin to stand up for it, already know what you're going to tell me, might as well delete it! --Xm638 (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing would please me more than to find a review by a reputable media outlet like The Denver Post or even a weekly alternative like The Village Voice saying that they loved the show and it was very compelling. I'd add it to the article in a minute. But dude...the show's producer publishing a review of the show written by a guy who was on the show saying how wonderful it is? We can do better than that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources need to be independent of the show. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:21, 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)

You're right about on average, I replaced that. I do not believe that buzzillions is a reliable source, so I removed that, and your removal of the Fritze reference seems completely inappropriate esp. given the discussion above regarding the use of the term pseudoscience in the article, so I have reverted those edits. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn. Please don't remove the Fritze reference; it is specifically on topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

What I labeled as 'junk' in my edit summary was an unreliable non-independent source: namely Producer Tsoukalos's AASRA journal that proclaims a mission "to spread the Ancient Astronaut theory" and a self-promotional quote so un-notable it could only be found reproduced in a fan forum. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're fighting a war that's hopeless, I'm going to try and flag this article for someone to take a look at. I made a good number of edits that attempted to correct this issue, but like you said everyone here is quick to get rid of anything positive. For example, I just cited an interview where Giorgio talks about how well receieved the show has been with viewers and how History was so pleased with how the show was doing it would be able to come back for a third season. But nope!! That was instantly taken off and put in the production section. It's ridiculous, I'm with you. --Xm638 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Someone" is already looking at this article, several someones. The more eyes that are on it will be good, though, so I welcome you to bring this article to the attention of one of the administrative noticeboards. Don't expect the show's criticism to be reduced. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Get real, I've said a thousand times I don't want that... I want to bring in views of the UFO Community and show what the show presents, you tell me I can't do that. --Xm638 (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The "UFO Community" does not qualify as a WP:Reliable source. I predict you'll have very little luck pushing your hopes in that direction at Wikipedia, not even at the relevant articles such as ancient astronauts and so on. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Some exceptions need to be made for this article, since this show has its roots in that community. I never tried to say the UFO Community was 100% factual and should be worshipped by others, I've only tried to bring in their opinions/views on the show and present the proposed evidence the show provides. --Xm638 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Crammed"? Actually, the only criticism is in the "Critical reception" section, where it is expected that positive and negative reviews will go. The rest of the article is positive or just a neutral list of facts. The negative views are very well cited, not as you say "uncited". Your observation simply does not match reality. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

You should have seen it a week or so back, it's made some progress since then at least. Note how no one ever tries to find additional resources to help back up anything I put, they instantly delete it and tell me it's bs. But if it's anything negative they will almost ALWAYS make an exception or help it out. It's part of dealing with this page man, I'd recommend you register and try to help out, if we can get enough people who actually want to edit this article paying respects to both sides, we might be able to get something done. I don't have a whole lot of time on my hands, so I'd definitely like to try and get some more people on board. --Xm638 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

To put positive reception text into the article you will have to stay within Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. Primary text from the producers or from people who were on the show does not count as positive critical reception. It's missing the 'critical' part by being a primary source. Find secondary sources that like the show, verifiable ones that are not from anonymous internet forums. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I'm aware of that. I've never brought anything forward from a message board. LuckyLouie is making an argument that you can only see that quote via web on a message board... if you want to argue that point then I agree with the above statement; the Fritze article that is referenced isn't exactly the most verifiable either. We are quoting from parts of it that can't be seen... I only see a preview when I go there. I really don't have a problem with it as is, but if we're going to argue that the other quote can't be verified then the other sources should be treated the same way. --Xm638 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Is there some reason we can't say the third season is coming back because of its popularity? Giorgio said it in the interview, I found some TV ratings to back it up... but yet I still am getting denied here. Also, like I've mentioned before... it's going to be hard to find a mainstream publication talking this show up, this show is about defying what is normally believed. It's extremely popular with the UFO Community and viewers. --Xm638 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Giorgio is the producer, so he's not a reliable source, he's not independent. You have found ratings, we can add those if where you found them is a reliable source. We cannot make the connection between what the producer said and the ratings, since that would violate WP:OR. I understand your frustration, but are there no magazines that would have reviews of the show in them? The magazine would have to have a rep for fact checking and an editorial staff, and we might need to qualify the statements (generally, if a source is considered to be in a fringe area, we treat it cautiously). If you have a ref for the interview, I can take a look. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... I think he's the most reliable source for talking about History being pleased with the show and telling him it can come back for another season. I didn't originally have the ratings, but I was told I needed them. Did you take a look at the other statements that are in the reception? The interview is up on Youtube and other sites, go check it out. Here is another prime example of how you guys are being unfair to anything positive I try to bring in. The Fritze quote needs to be removed, it cannot be verified, you left it up there because you trust someone's notes on the article, but you don't trust something I've brought forward. Did you verify the statements from the "far fetched" quotes etc.? Those can't exactly be verified with ease either... ;) --Xm638 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinions, but they aren't supported by policies, please read them. Yes, I did verify the statements in the critical reception, aside from the Fritze article they were from the very few reviews I could find on the show. I have access to lexis/nexis, and that's where I found them. See WP:V, which states "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries". --Nuujinn (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, I've read the policies. You remove everything I put instantly, believing to be correct. But whenever I take something out so we can talk about it, I get warned. --Xm638 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I confused you about the ratings. Ideally we'd report a TV reviewer's comment or a story in Variety that states the show is "popular" and references ratings, etc. An editor going to a ratings site and copying selected high numbers (and ignoring low numbers or no numbers within a period) isn't appropriate since it's WP:OR original research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:09, 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

Conservative? Been a long time since I've been called that. Seriously, can either of you point to policy statements that support your views? That's how things work here. Xm638, you removed well sourced content while we were discussing it, so I reverted you and warned you. Feel free to report me if you think I am out of line, I won't mind and won't take it personally. Please try to find some sources that conform to the RS policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You thought the article was well sourced, I didn't. I removed it so we could talk about it, you told me I was wrong and warned me. I constantly feel like a victim on this page; it's ok for everyone to quickly remove anything I add, but if I ever remove anything so we can discuss it I get accused of an edit war/flaming/hell raising.

69.160.179.202, as much as things get heated around here, I don't have hard feelings towards them. Like you suggest, I am extremely liberal, so I'm probably not the best person to be editing an encyclopedia, but I, like you and others, really feel like this article doesn't do the show justice. The source of everyone's complaints is coming from the fact that the article just throws in pseudohistory references, but really doesn't elaborate on that so the reader can understand why those things have been said, the average reader will naturally start to think negative things about the show. That's why I would really like to find a way to talk about the evidence discussed in the show, and I would really like everyone to try and help me. If we could do that I'd stop my bitching and let everyone continue in peace. I do tend to get very upset at the other editors, but that's simply because I have spent hours and hours of my free time trying to find articles and ways to edit this article appropriately, and so far all of my ideas have been quickly disreguarded and thrown aside. This article has come a ways, so maybe all of my time and effort has not been in vain, but I am not completely satisfied yet. It doesn't help that a lot of the things I'd like to bring forward are deemed unreliable, and I strongly disagree with that, but we have to play the cards that are dealt to us. LuckyLouie recently made some good edits to the reception page, and I respect Nuujinn and all the others, we just see things a little differently. Can we all try and pitch in to find a way to talk about the evidence in the show? Maybe even a little section that talks about the ancient astronaut theory and then shows evidence? Anything like that? --Xm638 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we already have an article on that subject. It would be inappropriate here and off-topic. Dougweller (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, we don't discuss "evidence", we discuss material reported by reliable sources. Xm638, I'm sorry you feel like a victim. If you think something has been removed inappropriately, please refer to the policy that supports your opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Watch any episode of this show, make sure you're following their arguments, then wonder again whether or not this is pseudoscience.theBOBbobato (talk) 02:18, 5 December 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)

Presenting views neutrally is not a POV issue. Deleting cited content because you don't like it is not appropriate. If you want more positive reviews then add some to the article. The problem is, the reviews of this program (which I still watch by the way) are overwhelmingly negative. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:06, 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)

If you feel the article should give the show's content more credibility, you need to find some reliable secondary sources that we can quote, e.g. "Atlanta Times reporter Sam Samuels called the show 'overwhelming evidence that aliens have visited the Earth' and praised its thoroughness." etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the editors of this page always demand others to make positive edits? Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia, why not let us all jump in and fix up the article! I just finished reading the above debate and I am very discouraged by how the evidence of this show is being treated. I'm not an Ancient astronaut fanatic, but to call the proposed evidence pseudohistory in just about every section of the article and NOT present the proposed evidence and their argument is a clear violation of Information Supression. --184.4.192.4 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to be a bit more specific. What do you feel is being "suppressed" from the episode summaries presently contained in the article? (e.g. "This episode proposes X and cites as evidence Y") Also the 'information suppression' link you've given is to a proposed policy that was subsequently abandoned. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to echo LuckyLouie in saying that there must be reliable sources giving a positive review of the show's content before we can say that the show's content has been positively reviewed. Wikipedia's stance on minor viewpoints is that the mainstream viewpoints should be given the prominence they deserve while the minor viewpoints are given lesser weight. In this instance the mainstream viewpoint is that aliens did not come to Earth and lend their technology to early civilizations. Binksternet (talk) 08:22, 2 December 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]

• Column headings - "Season No." and "Series No." have been problematic at many articles, so much so that long discussions about what to use have ensued at WT:TV, Template talk:Episode list and numerous article talk pages. "Season No." is often changed from a sequential list of episodes in the season, to all entries being changed to the season number, resulting in this sort of thing. Various other suggestions have been made including use of "№" and "#", but these are specifically excluded by MOS:HASH. Of the suggestions put forward, "No. in series" and "No. in season" seem to have been the least problematic (actually no problems that I'm aware of) in the last 20 months, which is why I started using them.
• Column sequence and linking - {{Episode list}} uses "|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.
• Referencing - It's standard procedure to provide references for all future episodes. The "|RTitle=" field is used for this, and I've used it for the unaired episodes.[6]
• Disclaimers - Season 4 included the following disclaimer: "Note: Season four is currently airing and the information below is subject to change."[7] It's redundant to include such a disclaimer. Everything in Wikipedia is subject to change and, since it's a breach of Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, I've removed it.

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)

I've been a large contributor to the article - although I've slacked off lately - and I had originally set up these episode lists and I was going by the way History (as well some as other networks - SyFy for example) had been numbering them. Each season is in the hundreds, first number means the season number, the tens/ones the episode number. I believe the table should follow suit. I think it avoids confusion for us summary editors, and likewise some of the episodes are similarly numbered by users when uploaded to sites like YouTube and would make them easier to find. I will say that in making the change the second time I just changed the numbers around, I didn't delete any blocks of text. Also, AussieLegend when you changed the numbering around the first time, you commented the change as "Use table fields correctly" and there is no "correct" way to use the table fields. Most are optional and can be used for whatever you want - there is no right or wrong way. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have any real problems with the season episode numbering used in the article. As for using the fields correctly, {{Episode list}} instructions for "|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)

Not to argue on, but still that is kind of vague. A number representing the episode's order in the series could still be the 101, 102, 103, etc sequence we've been using. As long as it makes logical sense I guess. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One note on the "currently airing" comment or sometimes "the show is in mid-season break" - I found it useful to add because some networks like to split seasons up into two or three parts and some editors will jump-the-gun and put the number of the latest episode as the final number of episodes for that season, either in the overview table or the sidebar, even though there are still more to go. I think this sometimes helps avoid this. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If the show is on mid-season break it's usually best to indicate to indicate that under the section heading, but "currently airing and the information below is subject to change" is still unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

The part you removed does not conflict with Wikipedia rules—in fact, the existence of well-cited negative reviews is specifically allowed by the neutrality rules at WP:NPOV. Your removal was in violation of NPOV, which is why you were reverted four times by LuckyLouie and myself. The article must maintain neutrality and it does so by including negative reviews. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Although significant part of this talk page disagree with your opinion, you still think you have the right to revert their edits forcibly. Since Wikipedia system failed to respond in five months period it leads to conclusion that Wikipedia is not what it claims to be. Not anyone can edit Wikipedia! Small group of "editors" took Wikipedia in their hands and claimed the right to judge others and delete their edits within 15 minutes without giving others chance to respond. (not anyone has time to browse numerous history pages) Yes it was a test, I deliberately picked the obvious conflict with more obvious violation of rules and unfortunately find out disturbing results. Despite that flaw, Wikipedia is still a vast source of information, but unfortunately, reputable and neutral it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.56.179 (talk) 07:25, 8 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)

You got it all wrong here. Your personal opinion about the show is irrelevant here, we are not here to discuss or test Ancient Aliens theory or hypothesis and offend millions of people in the process, we are after consensus about article and reliability of the sources referenced in it. So if you think your opinion on the subject is worthy of our attention you are welcome to write it down, get it peer reviewed and if it is accepted it can be mentioned in our article! There is no doubt that article describes basic fact about the show correctly, however, cited sources are questionable not to say biased. Starting with Fritzes' book which was written before the existence of the show, which means it can only be related to the topic in general or some previous state of knowledge and not to AE show in particular. So, at best, it can only be partially related to the show and it should be noted in the article if you do not want to mislead readers as you do. Because AE deals with the topic differently than before it needs to be analyzed accordingly to form valid opinion about it. The difference is in fact that there are numerous highly educated (Ph.D.) people participating in the show, because it is new, their discussion is yet to be scrutinized. I do not see Ph.D. fact is mentioned anywhere in the article! Something to consider? You may like it or not, even if mainstream science, as it is already mentioned in the article but without suitable reference, do not accept many of the ideas presented in the show, it does not mean there is evidence to reject them. Scientific method makes difference between not accepting and refuting and our article pushes meaning of non acceptance to the point of rejection, again misleading readers. AE theory, like any other theory out there, is work in progress and no one reasonable should try to stop that work or discussion about it "once and for all". Another example of stretching reliability of sources against AE credibility in our article is using reviewers of shows as appropriate sources, which is basically right unless you pull it out of the context, that is, they are not credible to validate expert's opinions presented in the show. Leave that validation to scientific community. So far Fritze is the only of that kind of reference mentioned, but outdated, partially related. Furthermore, how much credible do you think South Park's parody class comment is in comparison with Ph.D. level of discussion offered by ancient aliens show, and yet editors find it worth mentioning. Some problems I mentioned here were already presented on this talk page, but still not addressed in the article itself. Why? Can we improve on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.91.113 (talk) 10:22, 27 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)

Wikipedia does not exist to give the producers of Ancient Aliens a platform for dissemination of their fringe viewpoint. This article is about the television program, not about the argument that astronauts from other worlds decided to land here a couple thousand years ago. Scientists view the show as pop culture nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't remove the NPOV banner until the issue is resolved. A good number of people have dropped by and are not happy with the article, I think we should try and address the issues. Your argument really holds no ground; people might not agree with what the show has to say... but if there's going to be an article on Wikipedia about it then it's relevant to talk about what's in the show. What good does reading the ancient astronaut page do? Sure, this show is based on those theories... but how does a reader know exactly what is in this show and why people are claiming these things? I also think this guy has brought up some valid points on the cited articles... alas, points that have been ignored for a while now. --Xm638 (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The TV show is malarkey, based on nonsense authored by Erich von Däniken. Who is unhappy about this Wikipedia article? Those who believe in ancient astronauts; those on the fringe of science. What kind of weight are you looking to give the views expressed by the show and held by fringe characters? The views are classified by Wikipedia as WP:FRINGE, not mainstream. They are considered nonsense in scientific circles, but you would like this article to give them credence? Not likely. Again, this page is not the place to argue the issues of ancient astronauts. That argument is best kept for the ancient astronauts page. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the point entirely; never once did I say I wanted to present the proposed evidence as factual... I want to have a summary of some of the evidence/topics presented in the show. If we're not going to discuss it, then there's no reason to even have this article. There is no reference point for people reading this to understand why all of the accusations have been made. Assuming readers will go to another page and draw conclusions as to what is presented on the show is not solving anything. Your comments on this being nonsense is not helping the biased accusations. --Xm638 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The premise of the show is that otherworldly astronauts landed on Earth and significantly changed Earth's cultures a few thousand years ago. What more needs to be said than that? The evidence is laughable, the arguments dismissed out of hand by mainstream science. Look, man, it is a TV show, not a scholarly dissertation. If you don't like how the general subject is handled at the ancient astronauts page, I don't know what to say. The fundamental point is that this article is about the television program. It is about the ratings, the broadcast schedule, the production, the critical response; all of that. It is not a scholarly platform for debate and discussion. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Binksternet here. The article is about the TV show, not about von Daniken's "theories". This is not the place to present the "evidence" for them. A detailed "plot" synopsis is not necessary. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet and Dominus Vobisdu. The purpose of the 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)

Why do you think talking about the content of the show is the same thing as trying to debate? Either way, following your logic means that the South Park information belongs on the A History Channel Thanksgiving page. I'll be happy if we do the following things: 1. Have a redirection section that leads here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts#Evidence_cited_by_proponents 2.Remove the South Park section. 3. Stop making jabs wherever possible related to the reception. I'm down for showing the reviews, but trying to litter every section of the article with a reference to the reception is one of the article's biggest problems. --Xm638 (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no need for a separate pipelink that serves to narrow the context to proponents arguments alone. An internal link to the ancient astronauts article is contained in the second sentence of the lead paragraph, which appropriately provides the full context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A slight mention of the article in the beginning doesn't help clarify anything. Throughout the article we see that the topics and ideas of the show are labeled as pseudoscience... a new reader would ask "what exactly are these ideas?", I strongly suspect that a small percentage of readers would backtrack to a small reference to that page to find these answers. The proposed evidence section of that article is wonderful, having a section here that explains and redirects would do miracles. Also, removing the South Park reference is a big one... I do hope we don't ignore that. --Xm638 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The South Park parody is legitimate—one TV show parodying another. I think it should stay. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's entirely relevant given that the pardoy was very clearly and very specifically targeting this series. Mentioning that these parodies exist is encyclopaedic and can't be construed as non-NPOV in any way. There's a similar mention of the episode Whale Whores in the Whale Wars, Paul Watson and Whaling in Japan articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not entirely relevant to talk in depth about the reception of the TV show, which if you look at that article was "mixed" and it is not even presented as such here at all. Please accept that this section has been used to find another way to take a stab at calling this show nonsense. I would like to have editors that have a neutral point of view to this subject to look at these issues, not editors that have been in the coalition against this article (AussieLegend, Binksternet, Dougweller etc.) The comments from various editors on this page strongly solidify the bias claims. It is laughable at best that I am told that if readers want an in depth look at the topics this show presents they have to go to an article that is slightly referenced, but we have an entire section dedicated to the content of a South Park parody episode. --Xm638 (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your wish to have this article argue the evidence for ancient aliens is hampered a great deal by the lack of WP:reliable sources discussing the actual TV show evidence. Only fansite and self-published and primary sources are available, not WP:secondary or tertiary reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I take great offence to you calling me, or any of the other editors you have included, part of a "coalition against this article" and implying that our view is not neutral. This is highly inappropriate and you need to assume good faith, as we are doing. For the record, I quite enjoy this program despite cringing every time Giorgio Tsoukalos' unkempt hair appears on-screen. He really needs a good barber. That aside, I suggest you look at your own point of view here. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to be offended by that statement. There has been, for a while now, a group of editors that have patrolled this article. I am asking that we get some fresh people with a neutral view. My frustrations about people being against this article weren't really directed at you in particularly, so I apologize in that aspect. But yes, there are some certain editors here that need to assume good faith. I have made edits to this page that took me hours to research and write that were removed within minutes without any discussion, people come here and post NPOV banners and then start a discussion about it and instantly have the banner removed as it is considered a "fly by NPOV banner", and we also see that the editors feel the topic of this show is nonsense etc. and have attacked the show. I have tried my best to find a balance to what I'd like to see and the others here want... for example, the Fritze article has a number of things wrong with it in my opinion... it's strongly questionable that he's even noteworthy. I cited stuff by published authors that was instantly deemed as unnoteworthy and removed without discussion. If you are a fan of the show, why don't you make an effort like me to fix it? Do you not see the underlying tone this article has? Either way, please let us not divert from the points I have brought up. The evidence on the ancient astronauts page is very well written, a redirection to it from here is strongly needed to give context. A slight mention in the lede is not good enough. --Xm638 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Fresh people with a neutral view" is not any less insulting. I feel that I am able to edit this article with a neutral view but your wording implies that I am not. I hold that this article should be neutral rather than promotional or positive, which is why you keep seeing resistance from me. Your goal appears to me to be one of pushing the positive and removing the negative. I think the positive and negative should both be present in proper balance (not equivalence, but balance). At any rate, I'm not planning to go anywhere; I will stick with this article and help keep it neutral. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, praise for the TV show from reliable sources is hard to find, but negative reviews exist in abundance. Smithsonian.com is especially, er, unenthusiastic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it just happens that something is so bad that nobody has anything nice to say about it. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Young actress-models appear to be quite keen on it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:33, 17 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)

I'm not sure how my comments got twisted around into a personal attack. As you can see from reading this page it has been the same group of people arguing this out for months. I want fresh editors to take a look that have a neutral viewpoint... That's not me saying that everyone is biased, that's me wanting new eyes to look at the page. I am not the one that needs to observe having good faith, the definition of that is to assume the other editor means well with his edits. I am constantly told that I want to remove anything negative about the article which I have stated a thousand times is not true. I'm fine for showing all negative reception, what I am not fine with is the article bringing this up more than needed and there not being any context for readers to understand these claims. If the editors here are so neutral, why do they never make any effort to bring anything positive for consideration? For the bajillionth time, I am not trying to claim the evidence on this show is factual... but, I'm sure this will be ignored and I will continued to be accused of this. The tone of the article is very biased, it might be difficult to see if you inherently think it's a ton of crap, but as you can see from the number of people that posted here... it's clear to others. PS: I hold no hard feelings towards anyone here, if you look above I made a request for us to all work together and try and find articles to help improve this page. I've been arguing this for a long time as well, and the page has come a little ways I think, but not enough. --Xm638 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Putting a {{NPOV}} tag on the article is not the method to acquire "fresh editors" opinions. You should open an WP:RFC or place an entry at WP:NPOVN. See instructions at the top of those pages for how to proceed. Sincere good luck. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I had already posted there. I really like the recent edits. Thanks guys, I appreciate it. =-) --Xm638 (talk) 01:26, 24 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)

The context is missing because the sources do not compare TV shows, they only say how many viewers tuned in to this show. What we need are comparisons to other shows. Failing that, after checking out a bunch of similar stats for TV shows airing on the same nights, WP:CALC would allow us to tell the reader the percentage of viewership that was captured by Ancient Aliens, and which shows did better. Probably, though, the specter of original research would raise its head. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree the numbers are meaningless without context. And why choose those three ratings periods and ignore the others? As I recall, this stuff got added by someone trying to "balance" the criticism in the article. It should probably be removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:52, 10 October 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:

• Colavito, Jason. "Reviewing Ancient Aliens Debunked". Retrieved 9 October 2012.
• "Ancient Aliens Debunked". The Skeptics Society. Retrieved 9 October 2012.
• White, Chris. "Ancient Aliens Debunked". Retrieved October 3, 2012.
• Chris, White. "Ancient Aliens Debunked - References". Retrieved 3 October 2012.

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)

No, Ancient Aliens is not a documentary. Binksternet (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

So far no arguments against. (Yes/no is not an argument.) Jiiimbooh (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Smithsonian's Brian Switek says that the series is "rubbish" and that it is "loathsome" of the History Channel to call the series a documentary. I should think that calls the bluff quite well.

The series is a "pseudo-documentary" at best; facts and falsehoods mashed together, shown with CGI renderings of nonsense such as alien space ships shooting dinosaurs. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Our readers should expect a documentary to bear a fairly close relationship to reality, and this doesn't. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the series is not a documentary, which is intended to document some aspect of reality. As virtually every WP:RS analyzing its content would agree, it fails on the "reality" count. However, the series does use the "documentary format" in its presentation style, narrative, interviews, etc. So it would be fair to call it an "emulation" of a documentary, even if not one properly speaking. So as a compromise (and if other editors agree), perhaps the article could state that "the series uses a documentary format" or something along those lines without calling it a "documentary" per se. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Even Brian Switek (linked above) concedes that the format is documentary style. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Brian Switek should not have the last word on what genre it is, since he's a science writer, and not a tv-critic or film scholar.

As for documenting some aspect of reality, it is documenting these people's opinions and their "investigations" into their claims. I would classify it as an argumentative documentary. I don't agree with the conclusions it makes, but that doesn't matter in determining the genre. For example, I would classify both Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and The God Who Wasn't There as documentaries, and they are both classified as such on Wikipedia.

Ancient Aliens is currently called a "mystery" in the article, which is just silly. This implies that it's a show with fictional characters investigating a crime or something similar to that. Jiiimbooh (talk) 12:37, 12 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)

I looked at the first link and the problem is that it's a blog and most blogs aren't considered reliable, so you either need to show that these blogs are an exception or find a different source. See: WP:RS. Jiiimbooh (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Would the site be accepted if it had a different CMS (like drupal)? Because then it would not be a blog anymore. 86.56.141.225 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2013 (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)

In my opinion calling it a pseudo-documentary is a form of criticism. Criticism from TV-critics and scientists should of course be included in the article, but it doesn't belong in the infobox. It should say "documentary". /Jiiimooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 01:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The show is a pseudodocumentary because it "does not portray real events. Rather, scripted and fictional elements are used to tell the story." The show includes such fabricated nonsense as scenes of computer-generated spaceships killing dinosaurs with death beams. Brian Switek takes issue with this kind of idiocy which he says is "mashed-together footage of dinosaurs fleeing from strafing alien craft".[11] There's no "documentary" in scenes like this! The show's reputation is seriously reduced by such antics which dissolve any chance of a status as a true documentary. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Docufiction? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:39, 27 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 not alone; lots of people watch this stuff. Me, I agree with Brian Switek of the Smithsonian. Neither of our opinions count, though. I quoted Switek so that we have an anchor of a published opinion. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. I'd disagree that it simply portrays real events or that a pseudo-documentary can't have educated commentators. The show has the general feel of a documentary but clearly isn't one, so pseudo-doc seems appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 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)

I agree with others, this appears to be a documentary but the claims made are specious at best. It's clearly a pseudo-documentary. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Specious? If the claims these scientists made were obviously utterly false statements, don't you think there'd be people suing the producers of the show for presenting fiction as fact? Come on people! Do you really believe what the majority of history books and textbooks teach us about our ancient past? The historians who write these books are unabashedly biased, and are people who don't take everything that archaeologists find into knowledge of history. We'll just have to wait until someone travels back in time and discovers the real stories behind all of these ancient civilizations and whether or not they had connections with extraterrestrials. I'll bet my life savings, however, that the ancient past is far different from what mainstream history tells us. So I say a big no to "pseudo-documentary". 69.121.17.200 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 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)

It's a direct quote, and WP is not censored. Inclusion of opposing points of view is central to the principle of WP:NPOV. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Our sources are allowed to have a strong opinion. Since very few scholars are willing to comment on the TV show (almost all of them agree with Kenneth Feder that it's "execrable bullshit"), we must feature the ones that actually comment. When they bother to say something it's really bad: "noxious sludge", etc. So basically all the mainstream scholars in the world are represented by these few very negative comments. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Please refrain from using "our" and "we" in ways that indicate that you speak for others, or that imply consensus with your views. You can only speak for yourself. You certainly don't speak for me. Where do you get the idea that "almost all [scholars]" agree with Kenneth Feder and use his filthy words? Lou Sander (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intend to rile you; I just meant Wikipedia's sources are allowed to have a strong opinion.

Regarding my assertion that mainstream academia thinks little of the ancient alien hypothesis, and even less of this Ancient Aliens TV show, I have picked up that position over time, by talking with scholars I know, and reading blogs. Such sources are not good enough for Wikipedia, but they inform me of the general state of mind. The position is so strong that I would put the onus on anyone trying to assert the opposite, that academics think highly of the TV show. Nobody is saying that. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You have talked with a number of scholars and read a number of blogs, and from that you have developed the opinion that mainstream academia doesn't support the TV show or the ideas behind it. That seems to be a reasonable conclusion. It is a huge step from there to "almost all (scholars) agree with Kenneth Feder that the show is execrable bullshit". Lou Sander (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Lou. Getting back to the article, I see reliable sources being quoted and attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, so what's the problem? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just so. If you know of any reliably sourced scholarly opinion supporting the show -- or even the hypothesis -- by all means, bring it. The only praise cited so far comes from those eminent experts Katy Perry, Megan Fox, and Ellen DeGeneres. Celebrity opinions are unencyclopedic and don't really belong in the article, and I suspect that the only reason they remain is the feeling that some sort of favorable reaction needs to be included. I, for one, would love to see that nonsense replaced with at least one positive opinion from a respected archaeologist, but I've never found one. Have you? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We are talking here about the use of the words "execrable bullshit". They are pretty unencyclopedic, IMHO. Including them in the article, rather than leaving them in the reference, is an indication that the editors have subordinated their judgment to their flagrantly non-neutral points of view about the subject of the article. There are other examples of this, of course, but we are talking here just about this one. Lou Sander (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As Binksternet has indicated, Wikipedia is not censored. These two words are in the middle of a quotation that seems reasonably placed in the article. Removal of these words would remove context and censoring them would be uncencyclopaedic. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:28, 15 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)

I think it would be worth a sentence or two properly sourced. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2015 (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)

hi been correcting the data as its was wrong:

used this site to put it in order http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/episodes/season-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.156.233 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that, and it was good work. But best is if you tell people a little bit about what you're doing, when or before you do it. It saves them having to look into your stuff just to see if it's valid. (I looked into it, and it IS valid.) Lou Sander (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

ok didn't know about the process.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.156.233 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that History Channel has now reorganised its website, redefining the seasons and placing itself at odds with the reliable sources that have been reporting this series for the past 5 years. As a result, this list is now contradicted by the sources we use to cite episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

reply to aussie legend, it quite possible that we had the order wrong in the first place to begin with, as most had few episodes in it and one very large one, it you look an few seasons start and end in the same months and year, i think history channel would be getting the correct information from the producers of AA, i have looked everywhere, only found one dvd on season one to match it to history the other seasons of dvdd didn't list info on site, expect that it was 2 / 3 or 4 disc set, so dvds won't hold lots of episodes if it was the old layout... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.202.92 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe that the reliable sources that we use have had it wrong all this time. The Futon Critic lists production codes as supplied by the network and the latest episodes all have season 6 production codes. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:32, 1 September 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)

The Futon Critic's content is based on press releases issued by the network. The production codes listed are those supplied by the network. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to the confusion, I was just watching my recorded copy of "Faces of the Gods" and it carries a timer counting down to the season premiere. The episode aired immediately after "Faces of the Gods" was "The Reptilians" and is marked on-screen as being the season premiere. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:48, 13 August 2015 (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)

There's not enough content in the rest of the article to justify a split. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:02, 23 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)

The official website for this series says 11 seasons,[12] as does TV Guide,[13] so it is clearly not just imdb. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:08, 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120613232747/http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com:80/dinosaur/about-2/ to http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/about-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Since smithsonianmag.com appears to exclude robots, we can't get an archive-url from the Wayback Machine. We could replace that url with Brian Switek which includes his author bio-box (really short) and a list of his articles or we could drop it entirely, since the page is quoting from his article, not from the about page.

Also, catch this: Brian Switek on Twitter.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Dead URL dropped as superfluous.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

IMHO it should be replaced with the word 'participants' which is clearly neutral. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I watched "The Mystery of Puma Punku" last night and noticed that when the series referred to "researchers" the implication was that these researchers were some third party, as if to give the series some more credibility, but they were actually just people who appear in the series. That episode's summary says "This episode investigates" which is a better way to write the summaries, rather than using "researchers" each time. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Also agree, but think saying the show "investigates" anything is misleading since the premise of the show is quite clearly wild speculation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Simple solution: "This episode looks at" - or "discusses" Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Either of those options seems OK. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, basically, that they should be called "participants" though some of them, e.g. Sara Seager are legitimate scientific "researchers" in their own right. The prominent participants, IMHO, should be mentioned and identified by name and episodes participating in, with wikilinks as appropriate, so readers of the Ancient Aliens article can make up their own minds (as can we editors). Another example is Linda Moulton Howe. Though many may regard some of her work as silliness, there is no doubting that she is a "researcher" in cattle mutilations and crop circles, or that she is a qualified and competent award-winning investigative journalist. Lou Sander (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right, but if we call them all participants and link those with articles that should suffice. If we pick and choose we are not just inviting OR, we will almost certainly find editors changing how they are described. In any case we should just say "the participants" or "participating were" and only list the ones with articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I missed the above. Sorry. There should be no problem with changing descriptions or original research. The primary sources section of the policy forbidding original research allows the use of primary sources (the episodes themselves) to identify characters in a novel, for example, but not to comment on them in any way. Similarly, IMHO, the participants could be identified but no more. There are hundreds of participants, ranging from native guides to fringe theorists to eminent scientists. IMHO, editors should be able to mention any participant that they want to, as long as they provide citations of the primary sources (or secondary sources, in the unlikely event that they exist). Lou Sander (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure your suggestion is an improvement Lou. Is there an example of WP article of a similar History Channel show where we list all the WP-bio'd participants within each episode listing? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about other History Channel articles. But it is easy to see that THIS article includes nothing at all about the numerous and often credible outside participants, but quite a bit about people who declined to participate, people who ridicule the show and talk about "nonsense", "people of dubious authority", and the like. Similarly, some editors on this page have openly expressed their contempt for the material in the show.

It seems to me that this article violates policy by being written from something very far from a neutral point of view. In a nutshell, NPOV says that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

The side taken here is that the show is a silly fraud; it expressed with scornful contempt, both in the article and on the talk page. The side not mentioned or explained is that numerous credible people have appeared repeatedly on the show. It is not necessary, and nobody is suggesting, that every participant be mentioned in every episode that they participated in. Just give them the mention they deserve. Lou Sander (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the reviews are largely bad/scornful/negative. But it's up to 3rd party reviewers publishing in reliable sources to provide us with positive reviews. We as editors can't come up with our own ideas (like naming all the important people appearing in the show) for how to make the show feel more credible. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

We as editors have an obligation to insure that the article is written from a neutral point of view. IMHO, we have failed. Lou Sander (talk) 00:48, 20 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)

And I've reinserted it, refering to this discussion here. I've no idea why you think keeping the word 'researchers' is an open question. Where in the discussion above do you see that? Doug Weller talk 08:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I consider it open because all I saw here was mild agreement that something to the effect of "This episode suggests..." language might be acceptable. I agree that the word "Researchers" is probably undue weight, but I saw no conclusion regarding a suitable NPOV replacement and for someone to come along with a comment about "entertainers" to make the change seems contrary to NPOV as well.

Might I suggest that language such as "This episode speculates..." might be sufficiently NPOV?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 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)

• Oppose. The proper format for a list article is to have a few paragraphs of text to give the reader some background about the list. We only have a bit more than a few paragraphs here, so splitting the article would not really save the encyclopedia from having a large article. The situation would be different if there were several pages of text plus the long list of episodes. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Normally I'd support splitting after 11 seasons but, as Binksternet has pointed out, we have so little content here that we're not achieving anything by splitting. Removing the episode lists would effectively turn this article into a stub, and the "List of episodes" page wouldn't be any better. Most of the episode summaries are little more than a line at most. Normally, summaries are a lot longer (100-200 words per template instructions and the MOS) but there are only 10 episodes here that reach the minimum. WP:SIZESPLIT suggests splitting above 60kB of readable prose, but this article's readable prose is only 4.3kB, well within SIZESPLIT's "Length alone does not justify division" recommendation. There's really nothing I can find that would justify a split at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:21, 12 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)

See Ancient astronauts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2011 (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)

Wikilinking to notable authors would be fine, linking to non-notable (in our narrow definition) authors' websites would be inappropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 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)

Once again, this is an article about the show, not about the people who appear on the show. Whether or not they are notable by our criteria is immaterial to the issue of listing their research, etc. I don't know what you mean by 'topic' - the topic of the article is the show. We can wikilink to people who have appeared on the show that have articles perhaps, but that would be just a mention of their name. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. Researchers or commentators who appear on the show may be mentioned but listing their past research is too much for this article to bear, per WP:COATRACK. That is, unless some third party WP:SECONDARY source describes the person with regard to the television show. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 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)

You seem to be assuming that all of these supported the idea of ancient aliens rather than criticising it. As well as assuming that not having an article makes a source fail WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what I said that would make anyone think I'm assuming those things. The point is that the mockingly criticizedal commenters/researchers are far from "people of dubious authority", and that those who call them that, and those whose criticisms are quoted, in spite of the reliability of the sources in which they are quoted, are, themselves, pretty much "people of dubious authority", e.g., maybe not so notable in their fields, which for the most part are journalistic in nature. One might call them "hacks" or "biased commentators", or "outsiders", compared, for example, to the astronauts and distinguished academics who dominate the above list. The well-sourced criticisms seem to rely on misused Argument from authority. Also, of course, the commenters/researchers appear in the episodes to support them and provide background, not to criticize them. Lou Sander (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that WP:BLP applies here also? For instance, you appear to be calling Fritze a dubious historian writing journalistic books. I presume you have sources for that? Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it's quite a stretch to say that general statements about some critics apply specifically to one of them. Nevertheless I respect BLP, and I thank you for the reminder. I hope you don't really presume that I have sources for those general statements, but are merely speaking in some sort of roundabout way. I never looked into Fritze, who is a minor academic (an honorable calling). I didn't really look much beyond the stated qualifications of the critics, none of whom seem to be household names. I DID dig into Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews, who has a B.A. in archaeology from the University of Lancaster and whose career has been as an archaeologist for local governments in England. I was struck by the difference between his background, which I honor and respect, and the backgrounds of the persons listed above, who are not mentioned in the article and, according to some of its editors, aren't really supportive of the TV program or any of the ideas it expresses, in spite of their repeated presence there, or are only doing it for the money, or were taken out of context, or whatever. Lou Sander (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me Lou, but it sounds like you're saying that criticism is undue because critics are relative unknowns while stars of a TV show are notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The criticism might be just a little undue, given the absence of any mention of the notables mentioned above. And if they are the "stars" (a good way of putting it, IMHO), why are they so invisible in the article? This is, after all, an encyclopedia article about the TV show. Lou Sander (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The show usually fabricates a web of intersection between the beliefs of the people who appear as experts and the beliefs of the show's producers. Each episode is different, but typically they establish an unusual belief of the expert, for instance astronaut Buzz Aldrin who is certain he saw a UFO in space, and Jeff Meldrum who theorizes about the possible biology of Bigfoot, and then the show extends the expert's statements with conjecture and dramatization, to show that this belief could fit with the basic premise of aliens helping ancient man. The conjecture and dramatization is why most scientists don't even bother to comment on the show; it is below regard. Buzz Aldrin does not believe that ancient aliens were responsible for jump-starting human culture, nor does Jeff Meldrum. Many of the others in the above list can likewise be singled out and shown to be neutral or even hostile to the basic premise of the show. They agree to appear on the show because their pet theory will be described to a large audience, not because they subscribe to the ancient aliens theory.

I think the article's critical response section is suitable. If anything, it should be more strongly damning, but the available sources limit that possibility. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Due weight of a secondary source is never decided by how famous the author is, despite what you directly implied. The weight is decided by how that source reflects the preponderance of reliable sources. So the reliability is important, not the notability. Further, someone being notable does not mean they automatically have weight on an unrelated article, such as this. Weight has to be established by the usual criteria of secondary sourcing. Second Quantization (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following that. Could you simplify it a bit? The undue weight that I am referring to is the lack of information about the people who appear on the show, vs. the prominent properly-sourced criticisms of the show. A few of the former are mentioned in the Production section, but it is pretty out of date. The criticisms are fine, and readers can make up their own minds about their sources.

The Ramsey Isler criticism is actually about the South Park parody of Ancient Aliens. The comment about "people of dubious authority" refers to the characters in the South Park spoof, not to the people on Ancient Aliens, yet it is presented as a comment on Ancient Aliens itself. That led me to a wrong conclusion, so maybe it also leads others there. Perhaps it could be explained in the article, or removed, or whatever. Lou Sander (talk) 23:29, 16 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 (2017-07-21)

13012"The Animal Agenda"July 28, 2017 (2017-07-28)

}} Pepita96 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Hulu is not considered a reliable source. Instead, look up reviews of the same episodes from review sites that cover TV shows. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:08, 3 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)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ancient Aliens. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: comments concerning edits made to this article should be made to this talk page, and not the user's talk page. apologies to Thosbsamsgom. Zentulku (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Right. The goal was to gradually rewrite the article so other users, potentially those whom would object, to respond with edits of their own. To find a balance between the "I hate this show is still on the air after twelve years" and those who actually watch and want to contribute. However, the first timid edits inspired WP:OWNBEHAVIOR—e.g. "whitewash... this stuff is all pseudoscience". I opted instead to rewrite the entire article and post. So, my apologies should be tendered to those who feel I should not have been so WP:BOLD. Since I posted the rewrite before it was entirely cooked, and still requires more work. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

you did good. no worries. Zentulku (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the Talk archive, it appears enforcement behavior has been persistent since this article was created. @Thosbsamsgom: The rewrite is appreciated. BUT! There is an over-emphasis on criticism of the show IMHO, or is that the overwhelming trend among reputable sources? Also, why is the premise section detailing the gish-y tactics used by the show, or is that expected because Wiki? Fostrdv (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Gishy? Have you seen the series? For serious—? As far as criticism section, I have not found any overwhelming positive reviews of the series to add. Positive reviews are almost always offered with the caveat that the episode and or series is (insert negative criticism here). If there were a positive review from a rep. source I would include it. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Watching the pilot now. Neat stuff but I get it. SO. Appreciate your taking the lead to rewrite a great deal more. Fostrdv (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure how to describe the series' premise and its idiosyncratic presentation in a neutral way without being hyper-specific. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

should insert refs to specific episodes youve mentioned with time codes and or refs from legit persons who have made the same observations. great work people! article reads well. Zentulku (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd feel more comfortable citing reliable sources versus citing specific eps.? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)