Talk:Ancient Apocalypse

Interesting Source

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

James Delingpole

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

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

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

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

Here's a quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Ancient Apocalypse

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

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

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

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

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

Experts words taken out of context

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

Son’s involvement as netflix staff

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

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

Different series with the same name?

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

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

Unsourced lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second season of Ancient Apocalypse approved

‘Ancient Apocalypse’ Documentary Series Renewed for Season 2 at Netflix by Kasey Moore, June 14, 2024, Whats in Netkix. Paul H. (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

it has since been released. hopefully the article can be updated to include the list of episodes. 47.72.237.213 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Production and release

Regarding this reversion. The section "Production and release" currently contains the line: "Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix" (of course, in scare quotes). However, this seems to be strongly implying that Sean Hancock was involved in the production or release, perhaps inappropriately, a claim that has been suggested wink-wink nudge-nudge in some op-eds as just asking questions, but not actually verified. So what do the sources actually say?

• From What's on Netflix (the current source): Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, coincidentally works at Netflix as a senior manager of unscripted originals. Ah, a coincidence! Neat! This does not mean Sean was involved in any way.
• From Stuart Heritage in the Guardian]: here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?
• Jason Colavito in The New Republic echoes Heritage's musing: “Why has this been allowed?” asked Britain’s The Guardian. The answer to that seemed pretty obvious: Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, is Netflix’s senior manager for unscripted originals.. However, on his own blog, Colavito writes [CORRECTION: Sean Hancock was not involved in decision-making regarding Ancient Apocalypse, and I apologize for repeating a false insinuation that first appeared in the Guardian.] (emphasis his). So either Colavito is reliable or he isn't.
• An op-ed in Hyperallergic writes: How did such a sham of a show get made? Is nepotism the answer? Graham Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, is an executive at Netflix who works in the “Unscripted Originals” department. Yes, IS nepotism the answer? Hmm, hmm, who knows?
• A recent Guardian article simply concludes with: Hancock, previously a journalist at the Economist, wrote several books on international aid before switching focus to human prehistory. He has written more than a dozen books that embrace historical and archaeological themes. His son, Sean Hancock, works at Netflix as a senior manager of unscripted originals. This verifies that Sean works at Netflix, but not verify the suggestion that he had any role in Ancient Apocalypse.

So on balance, we have a lot of juicy implications that Sean Hancock was involved in the project, and one explicit refutation that he was. Unless or until better sources arise, I think it's at best irrelevant trivia and at worse misleading rumor-laundering to include mention of Sean in the production section, although the fact he works at Netflix might of course be appropriate in another article, such as an expanded biography of his father. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Giving the link to Jason would have saved a lot of time. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you support removal of this line? I don't want to do anything without consensus. Also pinging @Joe Roe:. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't say that Sean Hancock was involved in the production. We state factually that he works for Netflix in the relevant department. As you've amply demonstrated here, this is a fact that many reliable sources on the show have also found fit to mention, so your assertion that it is "irrelevant" sounds like your own judgement and not compatible with WP:DUE.

By the way, they are not intended to be scare quotes, just regular quotes indicating that that is his verbatim job title. Otherwise I think the inclusion of such a specific bit of corporatese as "unscripted originals" in the text would not fit with Wikipedia's usual encyclopaedic tone. Feel free to rephrase it. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't outright say, but we pretty strongly imply: in a section titled "Production and release," we have the sentence "Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix." Therefore, I think a naive reader of reasonable intelligence, who didn't read any other sources, would reasonably assume this to mean Sean Hancock was involved somehow in either the production or release. Otherwise, why would this statement be in this section about production? The last Guardian article above also identifies Graham Hancock as a previous journalist for the Economist and writer on international aid before mentioning Sean's job, should these facts also be in "Production and release"? (this is rhetorical, the answer is no). And I disagree with your assertion about "many reliable sources": most sources finding it "fit to mention" are engaging in speculation. That said, I don't necessarily object to Sean Hancock's employer being mentioned anywhere on the page, but we should clearly differentiate causal relationships from opinionated speculation (per WP:RSOPINION) --Animalparty! (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the production because reliable sources usually mention it when describing the production. What other section would it go in? If a plain statements of facts leads people to believe that those facts are connected, that's not our fault, it's reality's. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Most mentions fall under WP:RSOPINION/WP:RSEDITORIAL, and most sources on Ancient Apocalypse don't mention Sean at all. And it's easy to mislead by juxtaposition of true statements. As written, the article launders innuendo, coincidence, and groundless speculation as relevant fact. And what of Colovito's correction outright rejecting Sean's involvement? Should we include "Sean works at Netflix but was not involved in the production or release"? I think the appropriate place to mention Sean's role is in reception, because that's where op-ed sources most seem to dwell on it. And per WP:VNOT we need not necessarily include all verifiable info merely because it exists (we aren't robots), especially when it could mislead. --Animalparty! (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You're saying that 'Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix' is an opinion? – Joe (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

We obviously can't say he wasn't involved without something like a Netflix statement. And as Joe says, his role is not an opinion. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am with Joe and Doug here. I could see removal of the quotation marks, if that would help alleviate concerns, but the fact comes up so much in the sources that I think it has to be included in some form. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying Sean Hancock's position is an opinion, I'm saying the only sources that explicitly suggest Sean Hancock had any role whatsoever with Ancient Apocalypse are opinion pieces that are engaging in wild speculation (which even Colavito claims is wrong). What's on Netflix simply mentions Sean "coincidentally" works there. This Guardian article does mention that Sean works at Netflix, as somewhat of a background disclaimer/bio of Graham Hancock, but notably not in a section called "Production and release." Thus by article structure and juxtaposition of statements and subheadings, Wikipedia currently implies connections (i.e. Sean was involved in production/release of this show) much more conclusively than any other non-speculative source. If there are other sources that give more clarification, please list them. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I see you've gone ahead and made these changes despite the clear lack of consensus for them here, Animalparty. Colavito is a WP:EXPERTSPS when it comes to pseudoarchaeology, but not the internal production processes of Netflix. Unless you have a better source I don't see how we can definitively state that Sean Hancock was not involved in the production in wikivoice. For lack of someone to attribute the claim to (presumably whichever lawyer emailed Colavito!), I've added the word "reportedly". I would also support removing it. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

New Analysis of Ancient Apocalypse

An anaylsis of Ancient Apocalypse has been published. It is

Hammer, O. and Swartz, K., 2024. Graham Hancock, Prometheus for a New Age: Alternative Archaeology as Modern Mythmaking Nova Religio. 27 (4) pp. 79-95. Paul H. (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Hello, this page states that the YDIH has been "comprehensively refuted" and cites Holliday (2023) to support this. However, since Holliday (2023) has been published, there have been several studies that support the YDIH, namely Moore (2023) and Mahaney (2024). Moore (2024) also supports the YDIH but it appears to have been published in a predatory journal. I believe it would be appropriate to remove from this page the statement that the YDIH has been refuted. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A publication in a predatory journal does not change whether or not something has been "comprehensively refuted". Lostsandwich (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich While Airbursts and Cratering Impacts, the journal that Moore (2024) is published in, appears to be a predatory journal, Moore (2023) is published in Nature Scientific Reports and Mahaney (2024) is published in Geologos, both of which are reputable journals. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, the existence of some other people saying things do not, in any way, affect something being "comprehensively refuted", otherwise that term would never get used owing to the heaps and mounds of poorly researched, contrarian hogwash. Not how that works. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich Why are you referring to something that has been published in 2 peer-reviewed scientific journals as "poorly researched, contrarian hogwash"? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I said, not what you wanted me to say.

The existence of some other publications (in open access journals) do not conflict with the statement that X is "comprehensively refuted." Especially brand new ones. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to any recent publications in support of the YDIH from authors that are not members of the "Comet research group"? Hypnôs (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hypnôs What about Sweatman (2024) published in Time and Mind? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That paper is about symbology. And Sweatman is at least linked to the CRG. Hypnôs (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that Moore (2023) is cited on the Wikipedia page on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. I find it strange that it would be acceptable to cite the study in that Wikipedia page but not in this one. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

First off, Sweatman can pretty much universally be dismissed as pseudoscience, so there's that.

Secondly, Moore (2023) being mentioned on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis page is because they are relevant to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. It isn't cogent here. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that Moore (2023) is cited in a Wikipedia article demonstrate that Wikipedia acknowledges that Holliday (2023) hasn't completely refuted the YDIH? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. When Wikipedia quotes something, that does not mean Wikipedia agrees with it. Duh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Sweatman's Time and Mind paper, whatever one thinks of it, is a primary source. Isn't what is needed for the article are secondary sources that comment on and evaluate Sweatman's Time and Mind paper? Paul H. (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Article about concerning Hopi's objections to Ancient Apocalypse filming

Digging Into an Ancient Apocalypse Controversy From a Hopi Perspective. by Chip Colwell, September 24, 2024. This article provides additional information concerning their objections to Ancient Apocalypse. Paul H. (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The Hopi official interviewed says thusly: "Some Hopi clans trace their origin and emergence to the Grand Canyon. They believe they emerged from a previous world, the Third World, into this present world, the Fourth World." And: "Archaeological records within the Grand Canyon support our claims". Sounds pretty fringe. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That certainly does. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The theories presented in the series

I think part of the reason that people find the "white supremacy" description from the SAA and others startling (though it's absolutely correct), is that they miss that they're not talking about Hancock personally or Hancock's theory alone; they're saying that the intellectual tradition to which he belongs (going back to Ignatius L. Donnelly via Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken etc.) is racist and originates in white supremacy. It might help if we could have an article to link for that, is there one? Or if not, should we start one? What would you even call it? – Joe (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis#Nazism_and_occultism Hypnôs (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Review of Season Two

This might be of interest to you-all.

Review of "Ancient Apocalypse: The Americas" by Jason Colavito 10/16/2024 Paul H. (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)