Talk:Ancient astronauts

White supremacy argument

The skin colour of ancient people who succeeded to build enduring monuments such as the pyramids has no relevance for the topic. The skin color of aliens is also not relevant as it cannot be inferred from any archeological archefact (I believe). The corresponding paragraphs should, therefore, be deleted. These are in the introduction:

"Further, the history of thought surrounding the subject shows that proponents have adopted white supremacist beliefs to argue that indigenous cultures around the world were incapable of the feats of technology and culture that they achieved."

and in section Overview:

"The implication is that the non-white Indigenous people in the regions in which these monuments appear could not have built them on their own.[25] However, Dakota/Lakota Sioux writer Ruth H. Burns, in Atmos magazine, counters that ancient alien theory and the idea of extra-terrestrials in general supports the viewpoints of indigenous, non-European peoples. The denial of extra-terrestrial encounters and indigenous peoples’ stories tracing their origins to extra-terrestrials is part of “Indigenous erasure,” as it minimizes or completely discounts the viewpoints of indigenous peoples. Many indigenous peoples trace their ancestry to “star-people” or the like—extra-terrestrials who as the progenitors of indigenous peoples cannot by definition be white or “Aryan.” A common feature in the stories portray the aliens as light-skinned or Aryan in complexion, as prominent alien astronaut proponent Erich von Däniken claims in his foundational work Chariots of the Gods?.[10][11] Some ancient astronaut proponents are thus associated with white supremacism, although their theories are sometimes applied to European cultures as well.[27][28]" Nibor76 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The skin colour of ancient people who succeeded to build enduring monuments such as the pyramids has no relevance for the topic. The way Wikipedia works is that editors summarize what reliable expert sources say about a given topic. Sources decide what's relevant, not editors. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I kept these paragraphs, but I moved them into a separate section. Nibor76 (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nibor76 I believe that this argument is designed to put a negative spin on people who believe in this theory. there is no direct evidence or link between white supremacy and the idea that aliens seeded humans at some point. it should be deleted. Th3cur10usf00l (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't look at the cited sources which do supply a link between white supremacy and the fans of ancient astronauts. The white supremacy angle is now part of the literature on the topic, which means it stays in. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, the white supremacy argument comes from the book "The Secret Doctrine" (1888) from theosophist Helena Blavatsky, where she writes about an Aryan root race. As the Wikipedia article is on a real-life topic, theosophic arguments should be banned here. Nibor76 (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You could extrapolate that type of logic to link white supremacism to any theory. I agree with Th3cur10usf001 that connection only serves to slander those who accept the theory. 2A01:4B00:80F7:F000:B097:E320:701C:7A7C (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources actually did that, Wikipedia would have to follow them. It's the rules. But there is not much danger of that, because it is just your fantasy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Redundancies

The text emphasizes over and over in different ways that the ancient astronaut theory is considered by mainstream scientists as pseudoscientific. All these arguments should be shifted into ony one single subsection that needs to be created and redundancies should be removed. Nibor76 (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. There may be redundancies to be removed, but we should not ghetto away the fact that this is all bullshit into one section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I created a separate section and moved the arguments into this section. Redundancies that occurred in other parts of the article and were not needed for this section are kept. Nibor76 (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your changes were rightly reverted, as you made the article into a whitewash of its pseudoscientific foundation. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This should be an article on a real-life topic, not an article about the way people did pseudoscientific research in this area. 85.16.3.169 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing. Ancient astronauts is pure pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ancient astronauts is considered pure pseudoscience because the Wikipedia article presents it as pseudoscience and people believe in Wikipedia. Because of this strong bias, the article should actually be deleted. Nibor76 (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ancient astronauts was considered pure pseudoscience (by reliable sources) long before Wikipedia existed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

White supremacists dont believe in aliens

White supremacists believe that the og egyptians and indians and aztecs were white people who got great replaced by higher birthrates of browns they dont believe in aliens 217.140.214.239 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

White supremacists routinely believe all sorts of things, many of them contradictory. As far as this article is concerned however, we cite multiple sources that demonstrate the links between particular white supremacist beliefs and 'ancient astronaut' arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this white supremacy?

It appears the only white washing being done here is by those in the mainstream and those reverting edits on this article, pushing the narrative that somehow, someone hypothesizing about ancient astronauts has any correlation to white supremacy. Labeling proponents as white supremacists is like saying because a white supremacist watched a particular movie, anyone who watches that same movie is also a white supremacist. It's completely absurd. This article essentially calls anyone who believes in the idea of ancient astronauts a white supremacist per the verbiage. As mentioned within the article itself, a Dakota/Sioux writer calls out the idea as being absurd. Who has more credit here? The actual indigenous native saying this narrative is ridiculous, or the white people speaking for them? The white supremacy taking place here is being done by the very people arguing against it. This quote says it all. "Dakota/Lakota Sioux writer Ruth H. Burns, in Atmos magazine, counters that ancient alien theory and the idea of extraterrestrials in general supports the viewpoints of indigenous, non-European peoples. The denial of extraterrestrial encounters and indigenous peoples’ stories tracing their origins to extraterrestrials is part of “Indigenous erasure,” as it minimizes or completely discounts the viewpoints of indigenous peoples. Many indigenous peoples trace their ancestry to “star-people” or the like—extraterrestrials who as the progenitors of indigenous peoples cannot by definition be white or “Aryan.”" So who's really the racist here? Those who dare to think outside the box, or those stripping away the very culture of indigenous peoples by claiming their beliefs have no merit and make you a "white supremacist" for believing them? You can keep your biased wiki article, I'm siding with the indigenous peoples. 2600:6C54:4A00:619:F482:AE76:39C7:CE8F (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

An odd argument about White supremacy

This argument about White Supremacy seems to be the pushing of a political agenda, onto what should be the subject of legitimate archaeological research, by deliberately ignoring inconvenient facts. For example the idea that extraterrestrial input was present in the construction of ancient structures also applies to structures in Europe. It is a long way from being clear how Stonehenge was constructed, both in terms of the weight of the blocks of stone and the distance over which they were transported from the quarry to site. As the builders of Stonehenge and other ancient megalithic sites in Europe were demonstrably white and also indigenous peoples (to Europe), it is self-evidently a nonsense to assert that the very idea of extraterrestrial assistance in the construction of ancient structures is inherently a white supremacist position. When in fact 'indigenous' means the original inhabitants of an area and does not imply ethnicity. Further, the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians is questionable. They were however essentially of Caucasian origin as opposed to substantially Arab as per the current inhabitants of the area who are not 'indigenous' to the area. It cannot be a white supremacist viewpoint to assert that Caucasians may have needed the same help from extraterrestrials that other 'brown' indigenous peoples needed on a different continent to achieve similar feats. I have no strong views on the extraterrestrial assistance theory, nor am I a white supremacist. However as vaguely interested reader who came across this article in passing, it is obvious that it is not objectively written and that (leftist) pejoratives are used to attempt to discredit a theory which, in view of recent government releases about UAPs/UFOs, does warrant objective revaluation. This makes this article essentially worthless and discredits Wikipedia as an objective reference. In my view it is very soon going to become undeniable that UAPs do exist, that they are extraterrestrial/interdimensional in origin, that they have been observed on Earth for a very long time in the scale of human existence, and there has been substantial efforts by governments in the last 100 years or so to cover this up. At that point, as alluded to in the above post, someone stands to be left with a substantial amount of 'egg on their face' when it becomes clear that that the denial of ancient indigenous beliefs about extraterrestrial visitation is an an inherently racist position. And that these traditions were in fact completely correct. Mictlantechupi (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2024‎ (UTC)

Please note that is not a forum for posting your own personal opinions on the topic. Or your prognostications for the future. Or anything else not based around published sources, and Wikipedia policy concerning their appropriate use in articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)