Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Misleading citation regarding FOXP2

The article states:

Some ancient astronaut hypothesis proponents argue that the Forkhead box protein P2 (FOXP2) gene, which research shows to be linked with language,[10] is of extraterrestrial origin.

However, that citation takes you here: http://www.livescience.com/7973-human-speech-gene.html which says absolutely nothing about "ancient astronauts." Perhaps the citation was meant to support the "linked with language" claim, but, written as it is now, it makes it look like there is a legitimate citation for the fact that there are individuals who support this view --- and no citation for this is provided. 73.36.172.164 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup - no source for 'ancient astronauts' in that subsection - or in the following one on 'Genetic research and brain evolution' either. Accordingly, I've removed both. If anyone wants to restore this, they need to find sources which directly make such claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"Alien Evolution"

http://www.amazon.com/Humans-are-not-Earth-scientific-ebook/dp/B00DKK9IX2 "Humans are not from Earth: a scientific evaluation of the evidence" by Ellis Silver

I think that this is a notable wrinkle in the ufology phenomenon. It's a pseudoscientific theory that humans evolved from aliens. Do you have any idea if it warrants mention? Kortoso (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

THEN we have celebrated Australian cricketer expounding on this theory as well: http://www.thedailystar.net/sports/warnes-theory-human-evolution-513484 I think it's becoming widespread enough a belief (for what it's worth) to document. Kortoso (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And I'm not through yet. Richard Dawkins also spoke up on this craziness: http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an “intriguing possibility”. Intelligent life, he has explained, could have evolved elsewhere in the universe according to modern Darwinian theory, and this intelligent life could have eventually learned to engineer new life, and an engineered seed could then have ended up on earth and subsequently evolved into to all the life found here today.

Kortoso (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dawkins might, Silver, who thinks Homo Erectus as a Neanderthal? No. We aren't a tabloid newspaper. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Very observant, Doug. We are not a tabloid newspaper. ;) We are an encyclopedia, and this article lists pseudoscientific theories concerning ancient astronauts. Kortoso (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Zecharia Sitchin was onboard with this: http://www.sitchin.com/genetics.htm He might have started the ball rolling on this path. Kortoso (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Arguments for moving are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, which are policy-based arguments. The only argument against moving is that "ancient astronauts did not exist, so the article is not about the actual astronauts (which did not exist), but about a hypothesis". I don't think that is a valid argument, as Wikipedia has a lot of articles about things that never existed, and whose titles are just plain common name of the (non-existing) topic. Idea that such articles have to contain words like "hypothesis" or similar looks bad to me, because one may say that we should add "hypothesis" to a whole bunch of religious articles and that would certainly not be supported by the community. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Vanjagenije (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Ancient astronaut hypothesis → Ancient astronauts – "Ancient astronauts" is the WP:COMMONNAME, it's more WP:CONCISE, and is a better reflection of the article's scope per WP:PRECISE. Using my library's database to limit my search to peer-reviewed journals, "Ancient astronauts" gets a lot more hits than "Ancient astronaut hypothesis" (108 vs 8) and also without the peer-review filter (553 vs 17). "Ancient astronauts" already redirects here (singular and plural forms, with every combination of capitalization—which is more variations of redirects than we have for the current title). It's used in the plural form by academic sources more often than the singular form (108 vs ~40), so that's why I'm suggesting plural. IMO this article from 1984 in the journal American Speech supports moving the article to "Ancient astronauts". The summary blurb says: "'Among the New Words'. By Porter, Mary Gray, et al. Presents a list of new terms added to the American English vocabulary as of December 1984. Ancient astronaut; Backpack; Cabbage kid." (There were more words in the full list, and also definitions, but it made me laugh a little that those were the only 3 words in the summary.)

It looks like the article was originally named "Ancient astronaut theory" until it was moved to "Ancient astronaut hypothesis" in 2008 by consensus (the normal definition, not WP:CONSENSUS necessarily), because editors thought "theory" was misleading and rejected OP's proposal for "ancient astronauts", partially to do with it being plural, but it's not clear to me if there were other reasons. IMO "hypothesis" lends the topic an air of scientific credibility that it doesn't receive in academic sources that, when they do use the whole phrase "Ancient alien hypothesis", it's either in scare quotes or preceded by "so-called". Plus, all of the academic sources that do use that phrase were journals related to religion studies, not science, with Numen and Nova Religio giving it the most coverage. —PermStrump(talk) 19:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• CHANGE TO Support - (I don't know how to cross out existing text, so I've leaving my previous comment) this article isn't about ancient astronauts - because there weren't any ancient astronauts - it's about the hypothesis that ancient astronauts existed. Yes, I think the goofy idea can be described as a hypothesis. And yes, I acknowledge that wikipedia is not consistent in this area (e.g., consider the name of Flat Earth). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking around at wikipedia, where every other article about goofy paranormal ideas is titled by the topic {Bigfoot, etc.} without including the word "hypothesis" or "myth" or anything similar, I think this article can do the same. So I think the change is appropriate, as long as the very first sentence makes it clear that it's an unsupported idea. So I have changed from Oppose to Support. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This topic is about a notion, an unproved idea; it's not about an actual thing. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic is the so-called "hypothesis" not the astronauts that are claimed to have existed. Alexbrn (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. "Ancient astronaut" concisely and commonly serves as name for the notion(s) that this article describes. Ghost, Soul, Nirvana, Hollow Earth and plenty other other concepts, ideas, hypotheses, and theories (in the broadest sense) don't need a longer title just to tell people that they are dealing with topics that some people believe in, and even try to prove scientifically, while others argue that these ideas/ beliefs are unjustified. That's for the article to tell. Also, "ancient astronaut(s)" seems to be the common denominator among the various labels (myth, hypothesis, "so-called") used by academics that is sufficient to identify what is referenced by the term. (That's based on my own reading, but it's in line with Permstrump's check of terms used.) --Jonas kork (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Insofar as ancient astronauts is a hypothesis, the null hypothesis of no ancient astronauts can't be readily rejected. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support per Jonas kork. The principle is sanctioned in WP:POVNAME: Wikipedia generally follows the sources. [...] prevalence of the name [...] generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. Article titles are not the place to teach the dominant POV – even the scientific POV – about the issue. They are just supposed to provide a common name of the topic, and let the article body describe the appropriateness of the concept. No such user (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Binksternet and Alexbrn. The article discusses the hypothesis and its history, not the astronauts themselves. Furthermore, it aids WP:RECOGNIZABILITY to stress that it's a hypothesis.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is clearly the most common name for this topic. I don't think removing "hypothesis" gives the impression that there really were ancient astronauts; it's simply an article about the legend or conspiracy theory that is most widely known as the "Ancient astronauts". We have plenty of articles similar topics without "hypothesis" attached, such as Atlantis, Bigfoot, Reptilians, Grey alien, Philadelphia Experiment, Ashtar (extraterrestrial being), and more.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support – Proposed title is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE enough. Naturally the lead sentence must say that ancient astronauts are a myth. Conversely we don't rename Nessie to Loch Ness monster illusion, Cinderella to Cinderella fairy tale, Panspermia to Panspermia hypothesis, String theory to Not even wrong (oops) — JFG ^talk 04:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Binksternet I don't think naming the article "Ancient astronauts" implies that they exist, especially if the opening sentence stays basically the same so instead of saying, "The ancient astronaut hypothesis (AAH), or ancient alien contact (AAC), is the pseudoscientific claim that intelligent extraterrestrial beings visited Earth and made contact with humans in antiquity and prehistoric times (sometimes referred to as the paleocontact hypothesis)." It would say something like:

Ancient astronauts (sometimes referred to as the ancient astronaut myth) are a common trope in science fiction and UFO religions that are described as human-like extraterrestrials that supposedly visited Earth and made contact with humans in antiquity and prehistoric times.

References

"Ancient astronaut myth" occurs in the academic literature almost as frequently as "hypothesis" (5 vs 8), and more frequently (5 vs 0) if you don't count the times the author was being sarcastic (evidenced by scare quotes or prefacing it with "so-called").

Alternative titles

This is the number of hits for peer-reviewed sources using different labels to talk about this topic. 108 Ancient astronauts 70 Ancient aliens 8 Ancient astronaut hypothesis 0 Ancient alien hypothesis 0 Ancient astronaut contact 0 Ancient alien contact 14 Ancient ufonauts 10 Ancient astronaut theory 7 Alien archaeology 5 Ancient astronaut myth 4 Paleo-SETI 2 Paleocontact 2 Ancient astronaut intervention 0 Paleocontact theory

There are too many possible alternative names to address them all in the lead, but "Ancient alien contact" or "Ancient astronaut contact" and "paleocontact hypothesis" would not be in the top 10 (AAH and AAC don't seem to be a thing either), so I'm not sure why those things were picked for the lead sentence. But my point is discussing this now is to show what the most common names are for this topic according to the academic literature. —PermStrump(talk) 00:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks: Pole shift hypothesis, Tollmann's hypothetical bolide, Extraterrestrial hypothesis, Black Egyptian hypothesis, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, Phantom time hypothesis, Omphalos hypothesis, Witch-cult hypothesis, Location hypotheses of Atlantis, Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses, Origin hypotheses of the Serbs, Origin hypotheses of the Croats. I expect there are more. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO the word hypothesis gives it more credibility because I think people associate the word word "hypothesis" with science and research. It makes it seem like this is something scientist think is worth testing. —PermStrump(talk) 15:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO neither argument (what people associate with "hypothesis" in this context, and what other articles use as names) is of high relevance here. In the end it boils down to: what's commonly used by academics to refer to this subject, and is the term concise yet unambigous? --Jonas kork (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Despite my pointing out that the suggestion other articles didn't use the word was wrong, you're right of course. Our decision should be made according to WP:COMMONNAME. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The complication, I think, is that there there doesn't seem to be an obvious choice between the two approaches by academics or other reputable sources, partly because not a lot of reputable sources delve into such a silly idea - which is a common problem with articles about paranormal topics. This may help explain why wikipedia article names of paranormal topics are all over the place on whether to have the idea standing alone as the name, or to include "myth" or "theory" or something like that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is whether it's "worth testing"; the problem is that believers in Ancient Astronauts DO NOT test their belief scientifically. Likewise, the "Hansel and Gretel Hypothesis". Kortoso (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hermeneutics

Binksternet Why did you revert me here saying that "hermeneutics is not an alternate term" when I cited multiple peer-reviewed sources to support it? Here are the quotes since they might be behind a paywall:

Extended content

Zeller (2010): It's literally in the title: "Extraterrestrial Biblical Hermeneutics and the Making of Heaven's Gate" and this article and Zeller's terminology are cited and quoted by other scholars. From the text: "Those assumptions and approaches adopted by the leaders and members of Heaven's Gate are what I call an extraterrestrial biblical hermeneutics. Using this hermeneutical approach, Heaven's Gate reassessed and reinterpreted Christian text and history." Sentes and Palmer (2000): "Where almost all other proponents of the ancient-astronaut biblical hermeneutic interpret Homo sapiens to be a hybrid of 'those who come from the heavens' (in Genesis 'Sons of God') and protohuman females ('Daughters of Men') (Genesis 6:2), Raël is more radical: his Elohim reveal that humankind is literally made in their image by means of biotechnology. Indeed, the Elohim are responsible for all life on earth." Finley (2012): "...What Farrakhan employs here is a form of what Kripal calls 'alien hermeneutics' in the sense that, for those who experience them, such encounters call into question the histoi^ of human belief and the origin of religion and render received reality suspect'". Here are some more that I didn't cite: Gallagher (2010): One of the sections of the paper is entitled "Extrterrestrial Hermeneutics". Thomas (2010): "...Applewhite and Nettles had three topics of interest in the New Testament that served as the foundation for their extraterrestrial biblical hermeneutic." References

Those were just the first 5 sources from a quick search of peer-reviewed articles, and there were more. There are a lot more when you look outside of the academic literature, and I'm not even including the plethora of sources that refer to it as hermeneutics without using those words in the exact same order. I'm posting here before reinserting it to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding, but IMO this is clearly a relevant perspective on the topic that should be reflected in the article. —PermStrump(talk) 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a perspective that should be mentioned but not an alternate term as it doesn't cover all perspectives. Doug Weller talk 05:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, but do you think it's inappropriate in this context...I didn't actually put it in the lead as an alternative name or anything. I put it in the section called "Overview", and listed it as one of many terms in a sentence that starts: "Various terms are used to reference claims about ancient astronauts, such as ancient aliens,[8] ancient ufonauts..."? But I am thinking of something more to say about the social science and religion studies perspective to expand on the hermeneutics angle. —PermStrump(talk) 06:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine in principle and I'd like to see what more you have to say. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to list hermeneutics as an alternate name. It's not; it's its own completely separate subject. If you want to tell the reader the (sometime) relationship between hermeneutics and the ancient astronaut hypothesis then you'll need a few sentences. Binksternet (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Documentaries list

It could do with some external links to documentaries on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibinaear (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Calling this legitimate theory pseudoscience is very insulting. This should be changed. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

See my above response to POV. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

XFEM Skier, it should be removed, regardless of your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a sandbox for your personal opinions. It is designed to simply state an amount of objectively viewed information without editors putting their beliefs into articles. Whether or not evidence actually supports the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis has no bearing on its position as simply a hypothesis. Hypotheses require no further evidence and are simply a guess. Theories must be backed up by valid evidence, and the Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis is not a scientifically proven theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFDC:C940:71E2:4C66:CFE3:41E5 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, a scientific hypothesis (which this claims to be) is neither "simply a guess" nor "an assumption (that) needs no proof". (Your proposed definition would mean there is no such thing as "pseudoscience".) A scientific hypothesis is testable. A pseudoscience evolves to avoid all tests. But this is all off-topic.

More to the point: This is Wikipedia. Independent reliable sources from relevant, mainstream academics call it a "pseudoscience". It is, therefore, a pseudoscience. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"No, a scientific hypothesis (which this claims to be) is neither "simply a guess" nor "an assumption (that) needs no proof" I assume your PhD wasnt in a field of science, or researching anything as your claim of a "scientific hypothesis" is wrong..... You think a scientific hypothesis "Needs Proof"? Check out what proof means and compare to "scientific hypothesis, I would love to read your thesis! Oh no Did I upset you with reality again?

Hypothesis that "cannot be reliably tested" is..... pseudoscience? Ah no check the meaning of both words and see how they are used.

--Simon19801 (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Simon 19801 has been indefinitely blocked for disruption, personal attacks and WP:FORUM. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what part of me providing two sources that it is pseudoscience makes it my personal opinion. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is sloppy and can be cleaned up.

By definition, hypotheses can not be pseudo-scientific. As a skeptic, I am not a proponent of either side of this issue. However, I do support the proper use of the English language and an objective presentation of the facts. It is my opinion that the misuse of the phrase pseudo-science in this context is illustrative of Wikipedia's institutional bias.

In fairness, there is a great load of garbage in the ancient astronaut community. Some of it is blatantly contrary to accepted notions of logic. However, the author of the sentence is overeager to debunk the subject and thereby does readers a disservice. The hypothesis is testable, the results are inconclusive. More troubling is the fact that many of the books proposing ancient astronauts rely on absurd conjecture. If the author would like to debunk, he should do so from within the guidelines of logic. Otherwise the article may fall prey to some of the same errors ancient astronaut proponents have made.

Historical narratives are always open to dispute. The hypothesis that the Roman empire declined due to monetary debasement has similar properties to ancient astronaut hypotheses in this regard. However, Wikipedia does not label the fields of economics or history as pseudoscience. Simply claiming adherence to Wikipedia's subjective guidelines may be sufficient for victorious bickering, but it is insufficient in the larger sense of composing high quality articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.95.61 (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the treatment of subjects by reliable sources. Not the other way around. It's considered a pseudoscience here because the scientific consensus considers it a pseudoscience. Period. Like I've said to someone else: neutrality means presenting the subject proportional to the views about them. You do not achieve neutrality by giving pro and con voices false equivalence merely by virtue of being on opposite sides of the spectrum. When something is overwhelmingly rejected as a pseudoscience by reliable source, neutrality dictates that Wikipedia must also reflect that.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want the actual non-pseudoscientific hypothesis about this. We also have an article on that. It's called Panspermia. The difference between this and Panspermia, is that the latter does not claim ancient Egyptians gods were aliens, that the Nazca lines were landing signals, that drawings of ancient machinery were spaceships, or that Stonehenge was a beacon or something.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"By definition, hypotheses can not be pseudo-scientific."

A hypothesis that "lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status" would be, gulp, a pseudoscientific hypothesis. Reliable sources call this a pseudoscience. It is therefore verifiably a pseudoscience. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Does it mean that, for example, a story of Jesus Christ is a pseudoscientific hypothesis ? Because, according to the above, it is A hypothesis that "lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.176.50 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, the lives of Walter White, Thor, or -- for that matter -- Georgia O'Keeffe would count as "pseudoscientific hypothesies", since they lack "scientific status". You're making a category error, since the term "pseudoscience " covers -- you know -- science and scientific theories,hypothesies, and conjectures, not biographies. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of just undoing any corrections, please elaborate and explain why this hypothesis is "pseudoscientific" ? As Wiki states - it's a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. What else is the theory of ancient astronauts if not exactly that? The article sets the "mood" of a pseudoscience from the very beginning and I think it's unnecessarily biased towards the "pseudoscience". Easy to laugh it off - much harder to explain? There are millions of other hypotheses that aren't called "pseudo" by wiki gestapo... ~The fact that someone doesn't agree with the hypothesis doesn't automatically mean it's pseudoscientific. For example - martian canals were thought to be artificial until proved wrong. It wasn't pseudoscientific hypothesis, it was a hypothesis based on observations and interpretation... Exactly like Ancient Astronauts. Which is NOT pseudoscientific - it's just a hypothesis, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.176.50 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't make that type of analysis, we rely on sources, and the source for that sentence calls it pseudoscience. Doug Weller (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"A hypothesis that "lacks supporting scientific evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status" would be, gulp, a pseudoscientific hypothesis"

How can a lack of evidence mean that a hypothesis is pseudoscientific? Isn't the process of looking for and obtaining evidence part of science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.124.66 (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, I had a civil disagreement with another user regarding this subject. I wanted the hypothesis not to be called pseudoscientific, and my argument was as follows:

The deletion of the removed word does not qualify as an addition of "commentary or [my] own personal analysis" to the page's lead section. Also, the presence of the word "pseudoscientific" is no less objective or encyclopedic than the absence of it, as this word (and its derivatives) are inherently pejorative. A truly neutral account would be one which informed readers that the ancient astronaut hypothesis is widely regarded as, or generally considered to be, pseudoscientific.

An advocate of the "pseudoscience" label would argue it is proper because Wikipedia is supposed to summarize scholarly sentiment in a way proportional with the specifics of scholarly opinion itself; even accounting for this principle, however, there is no reason it is necessary for the very first sentence to declare the hypothesis a pseudoscience (as though the hypothesis is objectively so). A truly neutral rendering, as said before, would be one in which the lead section informed readers that the theory is widely regarded as a pseudoscience. No encyclopedic article should begin its lead section describing the subject with an adjective that starts with "pseudo-". That prefix is, uncontroversially and without exception, pejorative. The pro-"pseudoscientific" crowd may state, rightfully, that Wikipedia is not a sandbox for personal opinion - but the very fact that they provide this argument is ironic. AndrewOne (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

WP content reflects what the sources state. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I said to Andrew the following: "Pseudoscience includes any theory that starts from the answer and then looks for evidence to support it, rather than looking at all the evidence and figuring out the answer based on that evidence. Another aspect of pseudoscience is the belief in theories that cannot be tested. The ancient astronaut theory is exactly pseudoscience." We must continue to say right off the bat that this theory is pseudoscience. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What Binksternet said. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed the loud and loaded way the first sentence was written and naively removed the uncited "pseudo-scientific" adjective. I was promptly reverted. I left a note to that editor's talk page that reverting a good faith effort is not the best we can do as a community. However, being accommodating, I reedited the opening paragraph by removing the adjective, but moving to the front of the paragraph the statement that there is little respect in the scientific community for this hypothesis (the sentence is much longer and peacocky than that). The paragraph lost a healthy 140+characters in the process. I also moved Carl Sagan's contribution to its chronological place among the sources of this idea. User:Grayfell quickly reverted the edit, and left an edit summary that makes me think he or she did not see I had made those last two changes. I, like many reasonable editors before me, give up, for I do not have time to argue with editors that seem all too involved in watching this page, and seem willing to ignore the many complains found in this page that their blind fervour on labelling this hypothesis unscientific at-the-earliest-possible-moment is not helping the quality of the article ARosa (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This article must continue to say that the topic is pseudoscience, for several reasons. The hypothesis is unprovable, which is a characteristic of some kinds of pseudoscience, and the conclusion is drawn first, with evidence selected to support the conclusion, which is backwards from the scientific method. Evidence must be weighed to see what conclusions can be drawn, especially evidence which contradicts the thesis. Binksternet (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Before stating what the article "must" say, provide a link to the Wikipedia:Fringe theories policy to allow other editors to read it. Remember that not all Wikipedia editors are familiar with its long list of policies and rules. The relevant segments are:

• "Pseudoscience: Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."
• "Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arosa, Binksternet, and Dimadick: hope you all don't mind, but as the post that ARosa responded to says basically further discussion of pseudoscience belongs here, I've moved it here. It might be useful to read all of this section. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this hypothesis is pseudoscience because it claims evidence which is vague and for which there are alternative (and less fantastic) hypotheses, and because it is not falsifiable. That Sagan might have speculated about it does not change this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And per the policy quoted by Dimadick, it is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community," and there is not "a reasonable amount of academic debate." Indiana Jones Channel be damned, it has negligible acceptance (if that much) within the relevant academic fields.

Although a year in the past, trying to tie stories with pseudoscience is a category error: the writers of Breaking Bad didn't pretend it was a scientific hypothesis -- it wasn't science to begin with, so a lack of scientific status fails to render it pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"Pseudo-scientific hypothesis" is bordering on an oxymoron. The cries of reliable source could be used for all kinds of poor phraseology, and do not help make a better encyclopaedia. An hypothesis can exist within a pseudo-science, it is pseudo-science because evidence against hypotheses is ignored; alternatively a proposition might never have been an hypothesis in the first place if it wasn't testable, wasn't the starting point for investigation. Those editors who rightly damn the subject as pseudo-science, also damn language with their zealotry.

The article's title using the word hypothesis is the root of this problem, as that which is being examined is not simply the hypothesis, but the belief in ancient astronauts, its proponents, their works, methods, etc. But I am not a dedicated enough editor to set this right against those that care less about language than me, or are not subtle enough to even see this as a problem.--Mongreilf (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's actually a theory, not a hypothesis, which is a term that receives more than its share of misuse. Kortoso (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a hypothesis to me, and in any case reliable sources use the term: Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum ...[1] "Proponents of the ancient astronaut hypothesis" Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the ... phttps://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0415305926] "disagreement with the ancient astronaut hypothesis" The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: Volume One - Page 18 [2] "The source for this audacious suggestion— essentially the ancient astronaut hypothesis" Doug Weller talk 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely not a theory, in the scientific sense of the term (and "theory" receives even more - much more - misuse than "hypothesis" out in the non-technical wild, where wikipedia lurks). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's an hypothesis upon which is based a pseudo-science, rather than an hypothesis which leads to a theory. But this is besides the point. The point is an hypothesis cannot be pseudo-scientific, only the associated development of that hypothesis can become pseudo-scientific. It's as absurd as calling a theory pseudo-scientific, rather than calling it not a theory.

The article itself is about more than the hypothesis, it is about the pseudoscience. The page should be retitled.--Mongreilf (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mongreilf go ahead and suggest a new title, showing that it meets the criteria at WP:COMMONNAME. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The common name is already the one in use, but is a misnomer, this is the problem. Wikipedia's policies are not bold enough to improve this situation.--Mongreilf (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure anybody else has been convinced that it's a misnomer or a problem. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Several editors in this section state that it is a problem, others point out the definition of an hypothesis (which this article clearly goes beyond) so your comment is incorrect. --Mongreilf (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you more or less admit that policy doesn't support you, why are you continuing this discussion? It's fine to discuss the definition of a hypothesis, but we don't use WP:Original research to make editorial decisions, we use policy. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You've fundamentally misunderstood the problem if you think it is one of original research, unless of course you think the choice of language we use in an article is always OR.

The definition of hypothesis is not in dispute.

That the writings on what is known as "the ancient astronaut hypothesis" (the common name for what we are discussing) goes much further than simply making an hypothesis is clear.

The conflict is not even between what the common name means by virtue of the words within it, and what the common name has come to mean by its usage. A classic prescriptivism/descriptivism dispute. The conflict is in the spillover from the the common name's poor choice of the word hypothesis into the text of the article.

I am glad to see the article currently has addressed all these problems. I am happy with its current form.Mongreilf (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The basic hypothesis in itself is not pseudoscientific (I suspect the reaction against it is based on fear, not reason). Instead, the dubious interpretation of various artefacts is what is pseudoscientific. Given the vast sea of time behind us, as a species and as a world, if contact with humans has happened it is more likely in the remote past, when we were more primitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.81.220.58 (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Peter Kolosimo

This article needs more on Kolosimo. He popularised this idea in a big way long before Von Däniken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.81.220.58 (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of pseudoscience assertion

The opening line of the article asserts the ancient astronaut theory is pseudoscience. This is in violation of the NPOV. From WP:NPOV

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

I personally believing this theory is ludicrous and is non-scientific but I believe in the NPOV Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If sufficient relevant sources say that it is pseudoscience, then Wikipedia can say that it is pseudoscience. That is neutrality at its best. See WP:PSCI, from the same policy: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." - DVdm (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:ASSERT, "It's considered a pseudoscience by the vast majority of academics." means for Wikipedia "It is pseudoscience." So, the shorter text is ok, see the reply from DVdm. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is a direct violation of NPOV, as quoted above. It should say the vast majority say it is pseudoscience. What is so hard to understand? Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Form WP:ASSERT: "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline." - DVdm (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What section does it say that? Even if that is true, it still shouldn't assert that it's psuedoscience for reasons listed above.The purpose of wikipedia is not to push your agenda. Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The agenda being pushed is a reflection of the consensus of reliable sources, which it always has been. Simply saying it's pseudoscience is plain language, clearer writing, and is more concise at getting across the same idea. Wikipedia doesn't treat the academic consensus as an opinion. From NPOV (a policy): The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. From WP:FRINGE (a guideline): Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. Seems clear enough to me. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Way to completely misinterprete what is actually being said. Nowhere does it say assert that it's psuedoscience. All it says is if something is widely rejected make sure its known that it's widely rejected. Clearly it wasn't clear enough for you. Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This battleground approach isn't going to get very far. I can't think of any simpler way to convey that it's been rejected by the vast majority of experts as pseudoscience. Just saying it "...is a pseudoscientific concept..." accomplishing that perfectly well. There's no reason to bend-over backwards to accommodate the fringe. That's not neutral, it's equivocating. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you actually understand the difference between stating something as a fact and stating something as an opinion? Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If sufficient relevant sources state it as a fact, then Wikipedia can state it as a fact—per policy. Changing what is exactly said here, goes by wp:consensus. You have not established a consensus to make the change, and, per the policy outlined at wp:NOCONSENSUS, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". - DVdm (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What policy are you refering to in the first line? Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The policy outlined in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fringe theories and pseudoscience:

*Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

- DVdm (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The ancient astronaut theory isn't uncontroversial and uncontested. Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Then you'll be able to provide a few reliable sources, preferably ones with at least some level of scientific credibility, which state that ancient astronauts exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a list of people who believe in the theory in the article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. Please review our basic editorial principles, notably WP:V; our articles are based on what has been published in reliable sources. To quote WP:FRINGE, Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. This article amply documents and sources why this theory is considered to be pseudoscientific. That some people believe something which is scientifically untrue is interesting, but not relevant to our description of it as pseudoscience. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Already addressed this, see above. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You haven't addressed it, because you don't seem to understand it. You have produced no evidence that the idea is controversial or contested within the scientific community. Thus, both policy and editorial consensus support the current wording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you actually understood what you wrote.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs)

Even the Flat Earth has a following. But Wikipedia clearly dismisses it as rubbish (in the present-day science). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, thanks. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Flat Earth, ancient astronauts and creation science are labelled pseudoscience because the experts (scientists) are virtually unanimous that these are pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Great. Then I think we are done here. --McSly (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Guess so. Some people would rather push their own agenda then follow wikipedia policy. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should repeat it here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What part of the recent summary change do you object to?

@Dmol:, What objections do you have to my recent changes? Were there problems with grammar; tone; POV? BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You changed if from pseudoscience to something that is "frequently considered" pseudoscience. Almost the entire talk page of this article is on this discussion, and comments should continue there.--Dmol (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Science fiction topic vs Non scientific hypothesis vs Pseudoscientific hypothesis

Pseudoscience means the topic looks like scientific but actually not scientific and is false science. Pseudoscientific hypothesis or pseudoscientifc concept means the hypothesis or concept look scientific but actually not.

We would not say Harry Potter as pseudoscience because it is not classified as science, and it is clearly not look like any science.

Ancient astronaut clearly not like a science, and not like a valid science hypothesis or concept. It is clearly a science fiction topic or a non scientific hypothesis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.241.197 (talk • contribs)

That's not what von Däniken says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, who would mistake New arrivals, old encounters for science/history? The ancient astronauts narrative is predicated as based upon really existing archaeological evidence, it isn't predicated as fiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"Anunnaki" image

I have removed an image dubiously labelled as a representation of the Anunnaki and marked its page on Wikimedia Commons as likely factually inaccurate. As someone who knows something about Mesopotamian mythology, I know that there are currently no known extant Mesopotamian representations of the Anunnaki as a group. We do have representations of individual members of the Anunnaki, such as Enki or Inanna, but no depictions of them collectively. The image's page on the commons had no description or explanation. I looked at the website that this image came from and it appears to be a purveyor of the ancient astronaut hypothesis itself. The image appears frequently on conspiracy theory websites, but is conspicuously absent from academic writings about Mesopotamian religion. The image has clearly been drastically misinterpreted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done (pmc) consensus clearly against DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 20:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Ancient astronauts → Ancient aliens – Short version: Does not "astronaut" primarily refer to human spaceflight? Gaioa (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Long version: The concept of this pseudoscience is that extraterrestrials visited Earth long ago, but are extraterrestrials really "astronauts"? Although the word itself means "star-sailor" and is independent of species, it is almost exclusively used concerning humans. For instance, Laika is rarely considered an astronaut or kosmonaut, but simply "dog in space". Now, the subject matter of this article is by no means primarily ancient human spaceflight, but ancient extraterrestrial contact. And why should these beings be considered astronauts? I say rename to Ancient aliens, which I believe is a more common term anyway. Of course, this means that Ancient Aliens hafta be moved to Ancient Alien (TV series). However, if there's past wiki discussion on this topic, or if the sci. comm. considered the term "ancient astronauts" to be the most appropriate, or if the proponents themselves claim to talk about "ancient astronauts", then I will stand corrected :) Gaioa (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Move back to Ancient astronaut hypothesis as pseudo-science and non-encyclopaedic coverage of fringe theories. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Ancient astronaut hypothesis - The last discussion in December 2016 resulted in a move here but Ancient astronaut hypothesis seems a more appropriate move since the existence of ancient astronaut/aliens is only a hypothesis. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – I don't think sources discuss this hypothesis with the name "ancient aliens". Like it or not, "ancient astronauts" is the WP:common name for this idea. The debate on whether this article should move back to "Ancient astronaut hypothesis" should be debated separately. I would oppose that move too because we don't have Bigfoot hypothesis or Nessie hypothesis either. Our articles discuss Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and ancient astronauts as subjects that have been discussed in the written record. The intro sentence usually says that their existence is unlikely. — JFG ^talk 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per above, we use common names. As for whether to include "hypothesis", that's a separate discussion (which I will also oppose, as I did last year) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - again, per the above. The tide may be turning on this, as Mr. Von Daniken ages, but I still think "Ancient Astronauts" is the common name. I also agree that 'hypothesis' is a different discussion, but I oppose that as giving the topic a veneer of "sciencism" not found in the sources. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on WP:common name grounds, which as explained at WP:common name, trump considerations of strict accuracy (e.g. Bill Clinton not "William Jefferson Clinton"). Also, because the term Astronaut is not joined at the hip to humanity as claimed. It has both more specific (American space travelers as opposed to Soviet or Russian, or professionals as opposed to passengers) and more general (any intelligent being traveling in space, intelligence level not specified) meanings. The Wikipedia article on Astronaut focuses primarily on the case of professional astronauts, and secondarily on human space travelers in general, as is appropriate for an encyclopedia article looking to convey in-depth knowledge quickly. Such focus is not a good guide to the full range of meanings of a word. Syrenka V (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • BTW, there is even a children's book entitled Laika: Astronaut Dog, as well as a CNN photo essay on "Soviet astronaut dogs". A five-minute check of Google turned up these examples of the meaning "astronaut" has been claimed above not to have, a meaning which includes Laika. Syrenka V (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We even have not-so-intelligent mousetronauts, worms and cockroaches in space, including a pregnant cockroach who delivered 33 off-Earth offspring. — JFG ^talk 02:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Ancient astronauts" is more common on Google Books than "Ancient aliens". Obviously not all of those are reliable sources, but reliable sources such as those used in the article do use the phrase to discuss this legend.[3][4][5] "Ancient astronaut hypothesis" is much less commonly used and so isn't an appropriate title when more WP:COMMONNAMEs are available.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per reasons stated by JFG and others above. Also see related archived discussion on the article name from July 2016 , although that mainly revolved around the "hypothesis" part. "Ancient Aliens" is a recent term and may someday become more common and wide-spread than "ancient astronauts", but that doesn't seem to be the case yet (based on a quick search on Google Scholar). --Jonas kork (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient astronauts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20121602055400/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/199/zechariah_sitchin.html on http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/199/zechariah_sitchin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Popular culture section

I think that we ought to remove the second paragraph of this section. It's an non-sourced list of things that I think requires more than a simple assertion that they're relevant to the topic. Further it seems like a proper citation of the material would amount to a lengthy list at the end of the article and not really add anything of substance to it.

Please vote. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

While voting isn't exactly what we do, I agree that without some solid secondary sources, that paragraph needs to go. The Colavito text is fine for the preceding one, by my lights. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The concept is so commonly used in pop culture that listing examples is piontless, anyway. I agree: ditch it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the section was essentially a duplicate of a paragraph from the previous section. --tronvillain (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Consider it gone. I know we don't vote but consensus is nice and avoids arguments and edit wars. Ha, I was totally unaware that there was an article for in Pop-culture already. Nice catch! Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for being picky on !voting, but I've run in to the misunderstanding in the past. Thanks for this and have a good day! Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I assumed no bad faith. Cheers! Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Critics

In the content guideline Wikipedia: Fringe theories we have WP:DESCF, which says "It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose." We should probably attempt to integrate the Critics section into the article. --tronvillain (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm finishing a project today and probably tomorrow on another page. I'll put this on my list to get through next. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Going to take a look at implementing this idea today and make it more readable. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Finished integrating material in Critic section into main body of the article in what I think are the appropriate places. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoa - that was quick! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am fortunate enough to have gads of free time at work, access to a quality internet connection, and basically no supervision. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. If I find the time I'll try and integrate some of the "further reading" material into the article too. --tronvillain (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll circle back in a day or two and take a look at that myself. Currently wrapped up in cleaning up the English in Parenting. It reads pretty awkwardly in a lot of spots. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)