Talk:Graham Hancock/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022 (2)

I loved wikipedia for its open-source open edit platform. if the page cannot be edited you should have included mr. hancocks view on his wikki pedia page not allowing editing. this approach should be taken for every page about an individual that cannot be edited by that individual.

You will not receive any more money from me. I still love you but not as much. 2603:900A:1602:FD00:60F8:810E:E495:8A3C (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We pretty specifically discourage/prohibit people from editing their own Wikipedia pages as they have an obvious conflict of interest. If you have a specific edit to this page you would like to suggest, feel free to do so, otherwise keep in mind talk pages are not for general griping. Cannolis (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Cannolis (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Cite removed from lead

• "The Problem with Graham Hancock's Logic". Daily Science Journal. 8 July 2021. Retrieved 15 November 2022.

This cite was removed from lead, I thought it was a decent citation from the Daily Science Journal, so forgive me, but it seems to far more helpful to the reader than the first two citations left there to demonstrate the term pseudoscientific. Should it not be reinstated? Govvy (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy: There's been so much back and forth on the lead today. Can you find the diff where it was removed? – Joe (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I am trying to stay away from editing the page really, due to what I call some passionate editing by a few editors. I don't mind posting to the talk page. It was removed in this edit. [1] by Skyerise and I thought it a bit odd, because I thought it was a useful cite to have. I wasn't too bothered by the other cite being removed, that one seemed, off to me somehow. Govvy (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons violations

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Graham Hancock. Skyerise (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Really? Seems a waste of time, you split information, the headings were all over the place with your edit earlier. Keep the article straight forward and simple please. One thing I noticed, you had split Ancient Apocalypse (2022) section apart, had put it in Media appearances! When it isn't that, and the response to the show in a paragraph much further down the article instead of keeping it altogether. Govvy (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It's absolutely normal to present responses to a subject's work in a section specifically about reception. I mean, y'all basically believe his work is fiction, right? Skyerise (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In any case, per the template at the top of the page, this issue should be discussed at the noticeboard, not here. Skyerise (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

lol, you write "believe his work is fiction, right?" Frankly Hancock is marmite, he takes us to interesting places, but his who, how, when and why! Ugh, I can only take so much. Govvy (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Here from the BLPN post, but consensus is determined at article pages for content. Noticeboards are for getting additional input, but they don't override the need to use article talk.

I'm not seeing any real BLP violations that would warrant removal of language required by WP:PSCI policy. KoA (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for the removal of that content. Skyerise (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hancock is not writing fiction. That is a genre mix-up. He is writing pseudoscholarship. Fiction is intentional and Hancock, as far as I can tell, fervently believes in his own writing as being factual. jps (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What precise BLP violations are there? I don't see them outlined here nor do I see them explained on the noticeboard thread. Ordering sections and arguments over heading titles as such do not strike me as being BLP violations. What am I missing? jps (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Best known for"

Instead of "best known for", could we do "non-fiction writer who promotes pseudoscientific theories involving ancient civilizations and lost lands"? I, and many other editors, generally prefer not to use "best known for" constructions. I know the use of 'pseudoscientific' in the first sentence is itself under review, but assuming that it's going to stay, how does everyone feel about this new wording? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I know "best known for" it a sub-par construction, I just couldn't think of anything better. What's absurd is to expect a citation for every last choice of word and phrase. – Joe (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Instead of "non-fiction writer," perhaps "journalist"? That is his usual self-description. Just a thought. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Author? I don’t see his doing journalism which we describe as “ is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day.” Doug Weller talk 16:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

He use to be a journalist, the lead is back to front now, always start of with the subjects primary focus, which is author, then former journalist. Regards. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I made the change but didn't include "former" in "former journalist". If someone can source it, please add it in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

New Statesman published an article by him 9 years ago and still calls him a journalist. I don't think he has necessarily retired from that title since then. [2]. jps (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

He's also written at least two novels, so this was a good edit. – Joe (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I liked it too. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also think "non-fiction," while technically correct, gives a bit of an unintended imprimatur of accuracy. Dumuzid (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"The conventional account of our deep past [...] is almost certainly wrong"

I question the inclusion of this line from the Telegraph review of AA. What exactly is meant by this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In context, the author is clearly talking about the sort of shakeup discussed in The Dawn of Everything and by the site of Gobekli Tepe; basically that societal organization preceded settled agricultural -- which, while it is still the lay understanding, has not really been the academic consensus for quite some time. As used here, I would also oppose inclusion, as it might tend to be read as giving more credence to the wilder theories at issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree. There’s a real issue here of giving credence to ideas which used to be popular but that new work has disproved. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It's Sam Kriss. Yes, that Sam Kriss.... so I presume it's the kind of intellectual snobbery leveled at popular scholarship from the outside in that tends to pervade critical writing. Not exactly wrong but not exactly edifying either. jps (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Article on Ancient Apocalypse

"With Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse, Graham Hancock has declared war on archaeologists". The Conversation (website). Hypnôs (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022 (3)

Remove ‘pseudoscience’ references on basis of no evidence or citations. Recommend using ‘reporter/journalist’. Type of language is primarily used in a negative manner or character damaging and not all that descriptive. Tomrochesterpeary (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, one of the apparent citations didn't make such a claim but was there to support 'general audience'. However, there are plenty of sources which do so describe him thusly, so I found another more recent one to support the first. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on your argument. This is the same as guilty until proven innocent. Regardless of his claims which mainstream does not all side with that is irrelevant the choice of language is damaging and conjure up a negative bias. In that case change the Jesus wiki to fictional character. Tomrochesterpeary (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Appears to be a conscious effort to damage someone’s reputation. As much as there are skeptics saying his theories are not true those same skeptics cannot prove their theories either. This is a request to remove this choice of language. Change to (who’s theories are debated and not yet accepted by mainstream science) this would be a more acceptable use of language. Tomrochesterpeary (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not a claim by wikipedia, wikipedia is just reflecting what is in the citations. Maybe you should look at the sources. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The citations are all from 2005, are you saying that they are still valid or are we seeing an Einstein like "cosmic correction" where mainstream is too scared to go against the old farts ho wrote this in cvase they can't get funded for their next projects?

No one is saying that GH is correct but to only offer one side of the argument is ridiculous. I have been reading Hancock since 1997 and I can understand why it has taken so long but claim after claim he has made are becoming true. I cite the Younger Dryas which was absolutely lambasted by the scientific community until several years ago whereby it has now been proven as fact and accepted as peer reviewed. Jippoes (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Citations can be biased, surely we agree on that. Michael Shermer professional skeptic who published on scientific American was left unable to argue after the JRE podcast and has retracted some of what he said but a 2017 article still remains in place. Use Pseudo is not evidence it’s just an opinion. Wiki should publish facts, if you’re only looking at negative press then you’ll only see that Tomrochesterpeary (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tomrochesterpeary: The places to discuss that would be WP:RSN (disccusions whether the sources are considered reliable by the Wikipedia community) and WP:FRINGEN (discussions whether a particular source is considered a fringe source). There are current detailed discussions about Hancock in both of these places (toward the bottom). Skyerise (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Incredibly biased article focussed solely on criticism. In itself fully pseudoscientific.

I see there has been a lot of discussion here and that it's obviously extremely gridlocked. So, I'm just passing my opinion: This article is an utter disgrace towards Wikipedia itself.

You guys are presenting an author who managed to sell millions of books on ancient history, who, at least since the beginning of the 2000s, has based every single one of his major theories on the work of "real" academics or simply retold their theories in a perfectly scientific manner (mind: he's more of a compiler than a ("crank" 🤦‍♂️) theorist), and who has a level of sophistication both in his style of writing as well as in his style of speech none of you guys here could ever measure up to. Yet you feel the need to belittle this man who is obviously so much more intelligent than the whole bunch of you. Hence, the best you manage to come up with is to present him as a total loon. If anything, this tells a lot about the authors of this article (and all of its defenders) but hardly anything relevant about Mr Hancock.

I, myself, have studied History at a reputable Western university for 5 years (have you?), and yet, in the last 4 1/2 years, I learned so incredibly much more about what actually could have happened in prehistory by turning to "out of the box" writers like Mr Hancock. Mainstream theories simply don't do the job if all evidence is considered (which they always avoid to do). At university, I witnessed the reasons for our highly flawed understanding of human cultural evolution: scholarly arrogance, vain and an incredible amount of mental dullness. If you take historians for gods, you've obviously never met one in person. And yet, you base all your arguments on their desperate attempts of defending their own, often fully absurd theories. I do not believe that a single one of the fierce commentators here has read just a single book by Mr Hancock in full.

I know this comment won't change your minds. But, driven by your need for belittling, I felt the need to belittle you. I can do that in good conscious because I used to be in your position (frankly, never quite on such a low level), and I later learned that knowing nothing can cause vanity in humans. In the future, I'm also going to learn not to be bothered any more by small minds like you. Mr Hancock, btw, is an excellent role model for that. 79.153.51.191 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol. This is a mains stream encyclopedia. We don't care about your fringe opinions. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. - Roxy the dog 15:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Q.E.D. 79.153.51.191 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"who has a level of sophistication both in his style of writing as well as in his style of speech none of you guys here could ever measure up to" Con-men and frauds often have such a level of sophistication, in order to fool their victims. Hancock is no different. Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that Hancock is a deliberate con artist or fraud, like many people with fringe views he genuinely believes that he has access to The Truth™ that has been rejected by mainstream academics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I also want clarification on fringe views to mainstream academics. At what point does fringe turn to mainstream? 20%? 51%? 99% Does a specific academic or archaeologist have to come out and change their mind? Do they have to retract their theory? What percentage of Hancock's views/theories have to be published/confirmed for him to be considered other than pseudo? Hunter Ifland 22:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaufreeman353 (talk • contribs)

77.3%, unless the infield fly rule is invoked. Dumuzid (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"We don't care about your fringe opinions" I notice this a lot and mean this in good faith. Who is we? My understanding is 'we' implies part of a group, so if a group controls all said criticism regarding a encyclopedia article then the said article is not going through any process of improvement or discussion, therefore biased to the original talking point under this section? Hunter Ifland 21:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaufreeman353 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on the opinions of its editors, no matter how many years they claim to have studied something. And of course, neither the article nor anyone here takes historians for gods.

Every talk page of an article about a pseudoscience or pseudoscientists is full of contributions like yours. See WP:All your bias are belong to us. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid, Thank you

I did not understand the proper parameters for content in that context. 2603:6081:7840:18C:99F8:F831:151:8752 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

A significant number of the sources about Hancock describe him as a "conspiracy theorist" or say he peddles "conspiracy theories" (e.g. [3][4][5][6]), because apart from being factually incorrect his views are founded on the idea that academics cover up evidence and try to silence the truth. This isn't mentioned in the anywhere in the article currently, but it probably should be. Maybe we need a section on Hancock's general relationship with the scholarly mainstream? – Joe (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually we do mention "conspiracy theorists" in the career action, we could expand on that a bit. Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that something happens, without talking about an actual conspiracy, is not the same as promoting a conspiracy theory. That would require making claims about an actual conspiracy (or multiple). People can act in a complex way without conspiring. If the environment promotes it, it may even be likely to happen. A crackhead theory (which is what many people seem to believe is the same as a conspiracy theory) is another thing. I would suggest people in general stop using the term "Conspiracy theory" and "Conspiracy theorist" as cheaply as they do and instead stay a bit more objective when giving critique of ideas (and people). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, but as noted above, Hancock's claims that there is a concerted effort to hide the truth about the past fits the bill of a "conspiracy theory" for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a section as suggested by Joe might be a good idea. For reference, Hancock talked about this in an interview:

"This isn't a conspiracy...and that is a bit of a conspiracy..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqOXmANHCoc&t=1032 (17:12-20:19)

Almost one to one what's stated at Pseudoarchaeology#Opposition to the archaeological establishment. Hypnôs (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Not every crackpot theory that evokes the cliche of a hostile "establishment" is a conspiracy theory. Virtually all crackpots resort to the Galileo gambit, but that doesn't make them conspiracy theorists. IMO, an essential element of conspiracy theories is the claim of manipulation of the public by invisible powers, or through invisible actions attributed to powerful organizations. Hancock doesn't do that. His enemy is the "academic establishment" that refuses to accept his "truth", that's it. But he doesn't claim that the "academic establishment" exerts invisible powers or is controlled by such powers for the sinister motives of a hidden mastermind. –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Whether or not this constitutes a conspiracy theory is a matter of definition. For instance one at Merriam-Webster reads "a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public", which would fit in my opinion. The wiki article defines it in a way that wouldn't be applicable. Hypnôs (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, not what we think. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If a RS would be cited that uses one definition of "conspiracy theory" and it's linked to the "conspiracy theory" wiki article that uses a different definition, it's potentially misleading. Hypnôs (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we have RS on par with the sources that support the description of Hancock's writing as pseudoscience, pseudoarchaeology and pseudohistory? If so then it's fine to put the description of Hancock as conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice. Talisman is described as peddling conspiracy theories (Fritze 2009; Barrett 2014), but that book is a bit outside of his main pseudoarchaeological topoi. –Austronesier (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I confess -- I find only very scattered mentions of Hancock alongside "conspiracy theory" or any of its forms, so I may have to rethink my earlier support. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Where does the Slate article rebut claims of conspiracy?

I don't see it. I do see an interesting comment on his self-editing which might be useful. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)

Doug, please, stop attacking writers and thinkers that explain what science can not explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.233.53 (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC) They are not, they are saying a source does not support an edit. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Thats not a thecnical question, just a general question. This man was torpedoing too in ufo articles ( thanks god now they are real oficially) :). Why always against progress?. Its time to tell the truth. 213.98.233.53 (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) UFOs have always been "officially" real, since there always were a small number of apparently flying objects which defy explanation. And I would agree, truth is good. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC) THis is off-topic and irrelevant can we hat this? Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Im asking Doug. Ufos real 20 yeras ago? Lol 213.98.233.53 (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC) This is not off topic. Its the same tactic and the same ultimate defeat. This man was doing the same in ufo theme. Every researcher in the world knew that, but they were silenced . Happens the same here. Everybody is telling nonsense cause academics say that. Waiting patiently your defeat. Cheers 213.98.233.53 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC) This reply makes the case for hatting this section very persuasive. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I've re-worded the sentence slightly to read: "Answering Hancock's claims of a coverup, an article in Slate noted that archaeologists would be thrilled to uncover an ice age civilization, if the evidence really existed". Here are the relevant lines from the source:

"The argument is essentially this: The authorities who study human prehistory are ignoring—or covering up—the true foundations of the world"

"Hancock, scientists say, doesn’t understand how eagerly they’d leap at this evidence if it really existed ... As archaeologist Carl Feagans writes in a review of Ancient Apocalypse, “Every single archaeologist I know would be elated to discover any previously unknown civilization of the Ice Age".

So Hancock says archaeologists are ignoring/covering-up this lost civilization, but archaeologists say they'd be thrilled to make such an amazing discovery – there's simply no evidence. Do you think this works, or could there be a better way to word it? – Asarrlaí 14:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)
Very bad. Why thy f**** dont search with LOGIC in the ice age? 213.98.233.53 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC) see wp:soap Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Irrelevant 213.98.233.53 (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Dibble on Ancient Apocalypse

This is directly related to above closed thread:

Flint Dibble's piece in The Conversation is given some space in the section about Ancient Apocalypse, although his critique also reviews much of Hancock's earlier work. This includes a statement about "reinforc[ing] white supremacist ideas", which Dibble actually applies to Ignatius Donelly. It is only in the next paragraph that Dibble (correctly) draws a direct line to Fingerprints of the Gods, where the "white gods" topos is expounded. Not familiar yet with all facets of Ancient Apocalypse, I'm asking: does Hancock still propagate these views anywhere in the 2022 series? According to Jason Colavito's review of American Atlantis in Skeptic[7], Hancock made a "volte-face" in this respect. So I wonder if the statement by Dibble about "reinforc[ing] white supremacist ideas" is in the right place in that section. Austronesier (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the statement to the beginning of the Pseudoarchaeology section. However, Dibble does say that Donnelly and Hancock make the same claims, which "reinforce white supremacist ideas". Also here, John Hoopes says Hancock "no longer says the 'white' part in the series" but heavily implies it. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 21:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this improves the structure of the section a lot! –Austronesier (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

This page forces the opinion that Graham Hancock promotes "pseudoscientific" theories. its even the first thing that shows up on google when you search his name. There is no argument or evidence stating what is so wrong with the evidence that he has presented. The narrarive that the possibilities he talks about shouldnt be considered is distructive to the inelectual progression of out society. 50.83.224.149 (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The lead section summarizes the article. Examples of "what is so wrong with the evidence that he has presented" are found in the Pseudoarchaeology section. Hypnôs (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

He is not a scientist, so he can not be labeled seudoscientist. 213.98.233.53 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This reasoning is ass-backwards. Most pseudoscientists are not scientists. Those who are both do their science in one field and their pseudoscience in another, where they are laypeople.

Also, we have reliable sources calling him that, and they would beat your logic even if it wasn't so crappy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

He's a white supremacist - why the free pass on that?

The following discussion 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.

---

There is ample evidence of white supremacist statements and links. His latest documentary features some of his white supremacist chums. Why is he getting the kid glove treatment here? 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:1C31:F2CC:D14C:186 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't, but we need wp:rs to say it, and not our own wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So I would caution you that WP:BLP applies on talk pages--so please provide the evidence you speak of. If there's a WP:DUE amount of coverage in reliable sources, we would certainly include it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2022 (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.

Wow, that's some gatekeeping right there. Govvy, are you going to self-ban from this page or does this need reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:725A:838D:88E9:189F (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

While I don't actually substantively disagree all that much, as I noted above, WP:BLP applies on talk pages. When throwing around freighted terms like you are doing here--whether accurate or not--you really need to point to reliable sources to back up your assertions (and ideally, multiples thereof). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Use of Rediscoved Lost Ancient Technology Promoted by Graham Hancock and Friends

About halfway through Joe Rogan Expierience no. 1897, Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock promote the use of rediscovered “lost” ancient technology. This includes (A) “plasmoid” energy generators without moving parts and based “sacred numbers” and “vibrations”; (B) Mazda cars with green, efficient engines based on lost ancient technologies; and (C) secret Maldives laboratories filing 100s of lost ancient technology, open source patents. These are really weird, pseudoscientific ideas that Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson are openly espousing.

Graham Hancock also insinuated that the prehistoric use of lost technology is one of the explanations that archaeologists overlook the evidence for his lost advance civilization.

“The other thing is is when we talk about these ancient technologies if we're only looking for a mere reflection of ourselves. We could overlook it completely.”

and

“I always go back to the ancient Egyptian Traditions that speak of priests chanting as these huge blocks were lifted into the air were they using some kind of sound uh effect some kind of some kind of use of sound that was able to manipulate matter. We know that sound can manipulate matter as a matter of fact but they're lifting these blocks."

For the actual discussion, go to Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock on Lost Technology and the Great Pyramids on Youtube.

for some fan reactions, go to An Ancient Apocalypse? Graham Hancock and Netflix on Youtube. Paul H. (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I recall being present once when a group of Buddhist monks chanted at the opening of a Dunkin' Donuts. I never considered the obviously very real possibility that they had matter-manipulated it into being. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong info

I just listened to his Ted X Talk he is certainly not promoting the recreational use of Ayahuasca. Clearly it’s quite the opposite. 68.229.68.5 (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you contact the source we use and gt them to retract. Otherwise this fails wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The IP is perfectly correct. There is no source for the claim that he is promoting the recreational use of ayahuasca. [8] says nothing of the sort and the man himself [9] (there's 18 minutes of my life that I'll never get back) doesn't either. I have removed the word "recreational".

The subject does claim, at 6.34, that for 24 years he was "pretty much permanently stoned", and that in 2011, six years after his first use of ayahuasca, it enabled him to stop using cannabis. I'd have thought it worth adding words to that effect - with care since this is a BLP. How should we proceed? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the section on Ancient Apocalypse

In the section on Ancient Apocalypse (2022), I had made this addition that another user removed after deeming it unnecessary:

One of Hancock's recurring arguments in the series is that he adopts a journalistic posture and that this would explain why his position is different from that of the archaeologists. Yet, journalists outside of the academic community, do not share his views. As an example, Sam Kriss, a journalist from The Daily Telegraph, said the theories presented do not fully convince him. In addition, journalist Stuart Heritage of The Guardian believes that Ancient Apocalypse is "dangerous" because it "whispers to the conspiracy theorist in all of us" and therefore "we certainly shouldn’t treat his hodgepodge of mysteries and coincidences as fact.".

In my opinion, this detail is useful from an encyclopedic point of view. One wants to know what academics think, but also what other journalists than Hancock think, since the man builds his "fame" on his opposition to the "archaeological elite".

In a nutshell, I think it is important to give some examples of journalists who think differently from Hancock, just to help contextualize his argument.

I don't want to get into an editing war, so I'm asking here for the opinion (ideally argued) of some other Wikipedians so that we can determine together if the addition is totally useless.

A more synthetic reformulation of the addition I propose could possibly serve as a compromise. Since English is not my first language, perhaps someone else will be more apt to express the essence of the contribution in a few words and with more natural wording. Renardeau.arctique (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure we need to know what journalists think of this, as his claim "I am only a journalist" is a variant of "only asking questions". What we need to know is what people who are actually experts say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

Graham Hancock is not a pseudoscientist , he is a journalist and nothing more. 2A01:799:15A2:B500:F89D:55C2:6544:7C6E (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Where do we say he is? Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

2A01:799:15A2:B500:E160:C940:326A:211 (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Graham Hancock is not a pseudoscientist , he is a journalist and nothing more.

See above. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Do not make a new edit request until you have provided a reliable source. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

This page presents a biased and nonfactual summary of Graham Hancock. Labels like "psudoscience" carry a clear bias and should not be considered factual. Please consider editing the language, and at the very least, presenting a contrary point of view.

This page clearly does not represent a comprehensive or favorable view of Graham Hancock's work. Why is Wikipedia taking a stance on trying to decide who is using "science" or "pseudoscience"? Mapleleiff (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

We describe Hancock's theories as pseudoscience because reliable sources universally describe his theories as pseudoscience. To change that, we'd need to see reliable sources that say something different. – Joe (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not taking a stance, it is reflecting what reliable sources have reported. Please refer to WP:FALSEBALANCE for further info. Also, keep in mind that there is no reason Wikipedia should, per se, "reflect a favourable view" of any specific author, if such a view is not supported by the available evidence and reliable sources. Regarding a "contrary point of view", please refer to WP:FRINGE to learn more about fringe and unsupported theories, and why they are usually not included in articles. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki should not take a favorable stance on any one subject, person, or topic. It is information. It there should there be neutral on the matter. Claiming his ideas or anyone’s ideas are pseudoscience (which by your own definition on here they aren’t) takes a stand on what his ideas are. He has never made a claim to be a scientist or an archeologist. He presents ideas. These ideas shouldn’t be persecuted simply because they do not fall inline with the main stream view of the past. He’s not saying things are true but asking relevant and interesting questions. Many of the ideas presented here and opinions of Hancock are just that opinions of the man and this shouldn’t be a platform used to slander and harm an individual simply because you don’t agree with him. Dewayde (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

RS claims it, we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break it to you, but information can actually be favorable to a subject or a person. Neutrality, as embodied in WP:NPOV means that we present what reliable sources say about Hancock. If they cast him an unfavorable light, then we will as well. Your argument seems like it is more with mainstream sources than us here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience should be replaced by "speculative" or "pseudoarchaeological"

The sources used on this sentence within the wiki do not use the term "pseudoscience" and it is a jump to go to this term from the terms pseudohistory and pseudoarcheology to pseudoscience. Pseudoscience implies that archeology is a science. Archeology often incorporates scientific conclusions from geology, etc and uses testing that is also used in the sciences. It is clearly an academic discipline such as history. However, it is incorrect to claim it is a science or call its conclusions "scientific theories". Eric8911 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Archaeology is a science. See Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a term applied to natural sciences which is why the sources for this Wiki do not use this term and instead use pseudohistory, etc. These terms are not interchangeable. A pseudoeconomist would not be labeled a pseudoscientist even though, like archeology, economics is a social science. Eric8911 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source Fagan disagrees with you that the term is not applicable. Reliable source beats editor's opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source use words incorrectly too. Correct usage of words beats wikipedian opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In real life I would agree, but on Wikipedia, this simply isn't so. See WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Well it doesn't help when somebody removed some of the citations from the lead. Govvy (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please provide the Fagan citation you are referencing? Eric8911 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is pseudo-science, not pseudo-natural science. The Fagan source Hob Gadling mentioned is cited and linked in the very first footnote of this article. And from pg. xi, for example (emph. added): Pseudoarchaeology, like any pseudoscience, is always aimed at the nonexpert and the non-professional interested in the discipline concerned. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The Fagan source linked uses the term "Pseudoarcheology" which was why I suggested "pseudoarchaeological" as a replacement. I guess it is more punchy to say pseudoscience and maybe you are looking for a hook to draw the reader into the article. I have not previously seen a Wikipedia community settling on journalistic license to this degree. However, I've made my point. I obviously do not have the keys on this one so it isn't my call. Eric8911 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The word “promotes” is used in some places and speculation is more correctly used later in the article. I’d recommend sticking to the facts and making a claim that he speculates is strictly correct. He in fact does not promote pseudoscience and makes clarifying statements and caveats to his claims that he is not an archeologist but a journalist. Wiki shouldn’t be a platform for cyber bullying an individual but a place of true and accurate information. It calls into question the validity of wiki when opinion and obvious attempts to harm an individual are made and permitted to be housed on such a platform. Dewayde (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

He in fact does not promote pseudoscience So, your opinion is that the things he promotes are not pseudoscience. Reliable sources disagree with you. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki shouldn’t be a platform for cyber bullying lol. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Be careful: the next thing you know, everyone will stop their very generous donations. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

career - being stoned

Regarding whether we should mention his being "permanently stoned" (Hancock's words) in "Career" section ([10][11][12][13]) - perhaps it might make more sense if we include a longer quote. He actually says "for 24 years I was pretty much permanently stoned ... and I felt that it helped me with my work as a writer, and perhaps at some point it did". Mitch Ames (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's better, it makes the relevance explicit in the subject's own words. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to give an idea it affected his work. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including this in the career section in principle, but the source we're using—a primary/SPS video on YouTube—doesn't suggest to me that third parties consider this a significant part of Hancock's biography. – Joe (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason I deleted it in the first place was that there were two mentions of this in the article. The other one is in "Other media appearances". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The first one, which we're discussing, puts his own information in the context of his career and writing style. The second illuminates the reason for, and the controversy over, his recommendation of ayahuasca. I suggest that both are appropriate and that Mitch Ames' suggestion above, for a slightly longer first quotation, is a good one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I confess that I'm with Joe_Roe here: though I'm not militant, my gut is that this is just better left out as not really due for inclusion. That said, no issue going with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with being permanently stoned? - Roxy the dog 09:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suggest not to comb talk Hancock's talks for interesting-sounding trivia stuff if there is no secondary source that mentions it. That's undue. Agree with Joe and Dumuzid here. –Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your considered advice. I'm not trying to say what's wrong with being permanently stoned. I can reassure Austronesier that I haven't been "combing" anything; Hancocks's quoted comment is central to his widely-viewed and widely-commented talk. The fact does have significant explanatory power in the context of his career change, and I'm confident that our encyclopedia will be better for its inclusion. At this edit I have boldly used Mitch Ames's longer quotation to illuminate his career. I look forward to any further comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Richard, with all due respect, I am not really seeing a present consensus for inclusion, and I think there should be one for something of this nature. Again, I am not overly concerned and won't raise a fuss, just wanted to note that I think we're a bit off procedurally now as well as substantively. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Points taken. I agree that I too don't see a present consensus - either for or against inclusion. Having carefully re-read WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SELFSOURCE, I note in particular "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." I am confident that this quotation from Hancock is at least permissible by policy. I hope that a bold edit, that I see as a significant improvement to the article, important to the reader's understanding of the subject, will attract a decisive consensus from my respected peers in due course. In the meantime, to avoid any appearance of edit-warring, I'll refrain from further substantive edits on this subject for the time being, and chill for a bit by listening to some great poetry, stoned ramblings by Bob Dylan. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Pseudoscientific

The article on Graham Hancock STARTS (!) with the following:

"Graham Bruce Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. He is known for his pseudoscientific theories[1] (...)."

I want to dispute the neutrality and also the objectivity of the claim that Graham Hancock is known for his "pseudoscientific" theories. I understand that this is meant to be taken from an arguably reliable source (Brian Regal´s "Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia"). However, applying Wikipedia´s NPOV standard this claim should say that Graham Hancock´s theories are criticized/viewed as pseudoscientific and that he himself and others dispute that claim. One could add that he´s viewed like that by "many" or by "the majority of archaeologists" or some accurate addition to that effect.

The problem, for me, is that it is just claimed that he is known for his pseudoscientific theories, as if that was just an objective truth. But I believe one could make the case that this claim is not objective at all - and there are no reasons given in the article as to why precisely his theories just are pseudoscientific. I am not here to make this case (yet) but just to initiate a constructive debate around this issue. I strongly believe that this claim is not neutral but may be influenced by a specific view, even though this view is arguably held by the majority of archaeologists. For this fact alone cannot indisputably refute the content of Hancock´s arguments. Therefore I believe the neutrality and objectivity of the article could be restored by either an addition of reasons why Hancock´s theories just are pseudoscientific or by the following correction: The sentence "He is known for his pseudoscientific theories" could be replaced by the sentence "His theories are viewed as ´pseudoscientific´ by the majority of archaeologists".

If this suggestion is found to be unreasonable, not helpful, biased, problematic, or anything else that would undermine its aspiration, I would be very happy to be told the exact reasons for that, if possible.

Thank you!

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani on the Keys (talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Dani on the Keys:, your concern has been addressed already – please have a look at the archived discussions where are several explanations of why the current phrasing is in fact neutral, as well as the discussions about the term "pseudoscience" currently on this talk page. ("Neutral point of view" does not mean "equal weight to all viewpoints", and Wikipedia is intentionally biased towards reliable, mainstream academic sources. That is a feature and not a bug. See this information.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm worried about WP:BLUDGEON because this thread is only going to lead to a repeat of the things that were said in the thread above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a good point, ianmacm. There are basically two choices, when the same questions are asked over and over by "new" users: either point them to old discussions, which invites sealioning, or ignore and close the threads. Maybe it would be a good idea to add a FAQ template to the top of the talk page – then we could close new sections about the same old topic with a pointer to that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a great danger that wikipedia policies can be used to dismiss legitimate discussion just because the policy "seems to fit". The fact that a discussion has already taken place does not in itself mean that discussion was done in good faith or that the outcome was right, especially where the case isn't being made well enough by the sources or the information in the article. Daniel is not alone in finding this article slanted, I also had that impression and I suspect many others too. It is troubling to see him accused of "pseudoscience" when Hancock has never proposed to be a scientist or an archaeologist, he has never presented his views as anything other than his own opinion. His only suggestion to the scientific community is that they pursue alternative avenues of investigation rather than proceeding with base assumptions that are only hypothetical on their own. While I understand the objective of putting greater priority on more mainstream sources, this approach ignores the potential for those with that level of cachet to abuse their position. I believe that a good test of whether this is the case should be to make comparison between the facts of the individual and the claims of his detractors - in this case it is borne out by the evidence that they are not a match. On that basis I do think this issue is worthy of further discussion. -Badharlick (not logged in) 50.69.168.189 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You'll need some WP:RS reliable sources that support your supposition, but they are in fact, lacking. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is indeed slanted. All of Wikipedia is intentionally slanted toward what independent reliable sources say about a subject. When those sources say a subject's work is pseudoscience, Wikipedia will say their work is pseudoscience.

Can sources which pass the criteria outlined at WP:IRS abuse their position as "reliable" sources? Sure. But that raises two points.

1) Why? As a well-regarded peer-reviewed academic journal, why would you leverage that to attack the fringe theories of Hancock? The reputation was hard-fought and won and you're going to abuse it for some trivial battle of wits with the fringe?

2) When sources change from fact-checking and reliable reporting to something else, the change is typically not a onetime thing. The New York Times doesn't just throw in a few articles about secret cabals of extraterrestrials running the world every now and then along with their serious reporting of real-world politics. If you feel there are sources used here that are not (or are no longer) reliable sources, you are free -- and encouraged -- to challenge them. If you demonstrate that a source does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, the community will support removing in (leaving, of course, the other sources and what they say)

A wholesale attack on the pillars of the project will not get you anywhere on an individual article (as here). If you feel Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are seriously misguided, a better place to approach the issue is at the village pump or on the talk page for the specific policy. That's how the policies were developed in the first place and evolved to their current states. It's also how they will continue to change over time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

yes, badharlick 50.69.168.189. You make valid points. This needs to be discussed again and if Wikipedia policies are the reason that this article is so biased, then those policies need to be changed. Otherwise, you're just doing a hatchet job on somebody because you're following some arbitrary rule. The primary editorial considerations in any quality encyclopedia are accuracy and fairness. With all due respect to SummerPhDv2, these harmful policies of Wikipedia also.need to be discussed right at the places that they are unfairly maligning subjects: Here.

It's biased and unprofessional to off the get-go label somebody as "pseudoscientific" just because they are pushing the envelope or controversial in some circles. Let the reader decide. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

A, we do not label him as "pseudoscientific", B, we go by what wp:rs say, and if you want that changed go to the appropriate venue (such as wp:villagepump. C, we are not "prffessionals" as we are unpaid. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What you say applies equally to Hancock, David Icke, David Irving, Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von Däniken and everybody else who is spreading fantasy and ignorance. If you manage to change the rules, Wikipedia will have to treat every random bullshit and obviously false fantasy as respectable science. This will not happen because most people here have more sense than that. Also, Larry Sanger already tried that and failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain how NPOV is clearly not being applied equally across similar articles? For example the difference in tone/neutral point of view between Hancock's article and Michael Cremo's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo Hunter Ifland 23:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esaufreeman353 (talk • contribs)

Yes, this is a biased statement. This is a systematic problem with Wikipedia. Anything that's not status quo is labeled pseudoscientific, whether it really is or not. ~~ Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

addendum

Not sure If I'm doing this correctly, as I've not been an active member of wikipedia since the early '00s, but I'd like to echo this sentiment and suggest that, after having read two of his books, I would more consider Hancock to be a *theorist* and not a *pseudoscientist*. Some theories he puts forth are such that they cannot be proven in our lifetimes, but perhaps they could in the future. He doesn't tout them as fact: just as theory. Always uses words like "perhaps" or "in my opinion". And even some of his theories already do have some proof that has come about recently: like the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis - there has been a massive impact crater discovered in Greenland that could definitely count as evidence, but it's still early days and we haven't dated the crater yet. And when I compare Hancock's writings to those of other, universally-agreed pseudoscientists, to me there is a clear difference. Like when a "doctor" says "use these patches and it will cure cancer" and then posts fake findings or skews the data in a way to make it look like they work, when zero clinical trials have been done even though there is nothing preventing him from doing that. At the very least I think it would be wise to say that he is a theorist, but some of his theories are un-provable and conjecture at best, fantasy/conspiracy at worst. Something like that. Because I was turned off by Hancock for years because of his reputation. But after finally reading by myself and going through the paces of checking to see if anything he says can be proven or disproven, I've found that he does indeed have some great sources off of which he bases his theories. And as I said - they are theories and he doesn't tout them as fact - so I think he definitely needs to be distinguished from actual pseudoscientists who seek to hoodwink the public for personal gain. Again, sorry if I'm doing this wrong - just let me know and I'll put this text somewhere else. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketheburns (talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter what you consider him to be, or why. It only matters what WP:RS say about him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, so just so we're clear: if reliable sources say he practices pseudoscience, then Wikipedia will report that he is a pseudoscientist. The only way to get rid of the title "pseudoscientist" is to change the opinion of reliable sources? I guess that makes sense, as Wikipedia shouldn't promote opinions or do its own research - we just report what is out there. If we find enough reliable sources who use the term "theorist" instead of "pseudoscientist", would that be enough to use both terms? Miketheburns (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much. Thought I think most if not all reliable sources that call Hancock a "theorist" put the word "conspiracy" before it. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the term 'pseudoscientific' used in here! I mean isn't archeology itself is built upon a lot of speculation and conjecture! Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral and objective information platform. Not some biased and sensored information platform where anyone can put an objectionable title on someone. Ashfiqur112 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It's explained in the sources cited and in the article why the term applies. See Graham_Hancock#Pseudoarchaeology. Hypnôs (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. One thing that crossed my mind when I read the top sentence about Hancock was that this is written by someone who tries to discredit him in a subtle, sneaky way while claiming to be objective. The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of these people, slamming someone for pseudoscience and then they completely use their own subjective opinions when writing what’s supposed to be an objective description of said person. The worst part is how they try to conceal and deny it. Or they claim that the discussion has already been made and is concluded. By whom exactly? Likeminded gentlemen who happen to have been registered users of Wiki for a while? Tdawgh (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE should answer your questions. I'd also point you towards WP:AGF with regards to your comments about other editors. I'd encourage you to read the rest of this talk page and the recent archives, the points you're bringing up have been extensively discussed already. JaggedHamster (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Look at Kuhn, consider the Sociology of Knowledge as it applies to the Guild like behavior of academics possessing their topics.

It is only in the last 150 years that the Germ Theory of Disease supplanted the Miasma. We're the physicians who rejected the Germ Theory pseudoscientists? How about the folks who proffered the new concepts. For quite a while, they were on the outside.

The historians who favored the Confederacy in the Lost Cause literature, were they pseudohistorians?

Academic science is pretty much a closed shop. One gets initiated and quickly learns that either incrementing the accepted paradigm or digging into its components to validate that paradigm are essential for membership and advancement. Heretics are treated very badly.

Outsiders are simply not welcome. This is a problem because academia does not have an equivalent counter narrative. It responds to outsiders first in an ad hominem manner and then searches for a loose thread that can unravel the whole suit. This comes down to an argument from authority.

Generally, the lay people who find these topics of interest and literate and thoughtful. They are not much in danger of being seduced into a belief system that does not meet their own criteria. Further, they don't need to be rescued because if they believe Hancock lock, stock and barrel no tangible harm results.

An open minded approach that involved educating in a constructive way rather that indignant refutation would be a step in the right direction. 2603:6081:7840:18C:99F8:F831:151:8752 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of your argument here, it would be a fundamental shift from Wikipedia's basis on reliable sources (or, at the very least, a big change in what is considered reliable). As such, it's not really apposite on this page. If you want to argue for different guidelines or change to the existing ones, you can do so, but this is not the place. Quite honestly--and I mean this in all good faith--it sounds like a line of reasoning more suited to a substantive discussion and not to a place where we seek to create encyclopedic entries based on secondary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We cannot know now which non-mainstream views will make it into the mainstream some day. This is covered by WP:CRYSTALBALL.

you can try to get Wikipedia policies changed so that Hancock, Erich von Däniken, David Icke, David Irving and Henry M. Morris are treated as serious scientists. (Your reasoning above applies to all of them equally, so you cannot pick and choose those you consider worthy.) But Larry Sanger already tried that and failed. He also tried to start independent encyclopedias that did it like that and failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"The historians who favored the Confederacy in the Lost Cause literature, were they pseudohistorians" , yes from the lede of Lost Cause of the Confederacy "The Lost Cause of the Confederacy (or simply Lost Cause) is an American pseudohistorical[2][3] negationist mythology[4][5][6]". Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

See also WP:RGW. It is not the job of Wikipedia to override mainstream academic research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly unaware of the disagreements, sometimes bitter rows, that occur in academia. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

All references citing Hancock's work as speculative are now nearly 20 years old. The science has changed, why hasn't this page? Jippoes (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Please provide RS that say "the science has changed". Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic I wasn't aware I could do this. I will read the rules and get going.

Cheers

JG Jippoes (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Open letter from the Society for American Archaeology

Here.[14] Starts with "This series publicly disparages archaeologists and devalues the archaeological profession on the basis of false claims and disinformation. I write to encourage you to correctly classify the genre of the show, to provide disclaimers about the unfounded suppositions in the show, and ideally to balance the deleterious content in the show with scientifically accurate information about our human past." It notes that "the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists". There's also "Netflix and ITN Productions are actively assaulting our expert knowledge, fostering distrust of our scientific community, diminishing the credibility of our members in the public eye, and undermining our extensive and ongoing efforts at outreach and public education." Well worth reading and I hope we can use it as a source. Meanwhile I'll add it as an EL. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I've used it as an inline source for the body of the article, so it should probably be removed as an external link. There's also no need to tell the world the facebook content link id that you (or someone else) used to get to the article (the part from '?' onwards); the URL without tracers is plenty. :) Boud (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@BoudBooks, just did copy and paste and wasn’t paying attention. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m not on my pc until tomorrow but the entry misses the main points of the letter. If no one else does I’ll have a go tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thought it would be worth briefly drawing attention to this Jason Colavito piece in The New Republic. Not quite sure what, if anything, to do with it yet. Another data point for all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Apocalypse (2022) needs its own article.

The Netflix show is very popular and this article lacks any of the production information that is normally included in TV shows. The article could also refute any pseudoscience at length, which this article cannot. Victor Grigas (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: There is nothing wrong with you creating an article; Draft:Ancient Apocalypse, Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to split it off. Summarizing the reviews here is already getting challenging. – Joe (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I've started an article at Ancient Apocalypse. – Joe (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Who are the people moderate this page and why are they so biased?

Who are you people who call yourselves moderators (i.e. Doug Weller)? Why are you all so closed minded and refuse to be open to alternative ideas on subjects that are not fully understood? You just all stick complacently to your "mainstream" ideas and refuse to listen to anything different. Very shameful and pseudoscientic mindset if you ask me. Oatmeal89 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I am the Lord High Moderator of this page, and as such it is my solemn duty to make sure that the existence of advanced Lemurian civilization never comes to light. Have a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Pathetic response. Who are you to determine what is and isn't fiction? Oatmeal89 (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody cares about what you think, your claims of "bias" are frankly risible and only worthy of mockery. You should probably read WP:IDHT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I will go to bed tonight knowing that I failed to live up to your standards, and I apologize to all Lemurians present for suggesting that advanced Lemurian civilization is fictional. Have a wonderful weekend, everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This is why I will stop donating to Wikipedia. Jippoes (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

IMHO most people who say this don’t donate anyway, especially new editors. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"If you change the article content from what reliable sources are saying to what I am saying, I will give you money" is not really good reasoning. If Wikipedia worked like that, it would have gone down the drain long ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Two edits and they vanish. Another WP:SPA. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't gone away, I have a day job. I have been reading Hancock for over twenty years and TBH I had to put up with UFO loonies in our face for many years. There are now a list of items now proven or at the very least extremely likely that should at least be discussed on the page.

There should perhaps even be a separate WIKI page which explains that peer reviewed scientists are crossing the line and why? What did they original WIKI page say about the younger DRYAS? It is now a fact not a piece of "pseudo science. Have the scientists who were laughed at been redeemed by academia or like most science disciplines does the older generation have to die to let new arguments enter the discussion.

The response of the moderators and they way they treat people here isn't great and TBH I am more interested in addressing that before we can even discuss scientific accuracy.

Feel free to message me personally if you are missing me. Jippoes (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

In all seriousness, this is just ipse dixit. Telling us what is "now a fact" is not likely to sway anyone's opinion. If there are reliable sources you'd like to discuss, point us to them and we can do that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00368504211064272 Peer reviewed and published. The younger dryas impact theory. No longer a theory except in the minds of those protecting their writings. You are welcome my special associate. Jippoes (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you'll find this one has been discussed quite a bit, but more over at the Younger Dryas page itself. There is still some debate about how exactly to deal with it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jippoes: There aren't any "moderators" on Wikipedia. Anybody can edit this article just as anyone can join the discussion on this talk page. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

A personage of noble rank and title — A dignified and potent officer Whose functions are particularly vital! (Wit) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Your ideas about how Wikipedia should be are different from what the policies, the guidelines, and the essays that explain them say. You are just the last in a long, long, long line of people who want Wikipedia to reflect their own biases instead of those of reliable sources. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and, about fringe ideas, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:YWAB, WP:GOODBIAS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Pray tell me where I call myself a moderator. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Close this rant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it everyone N2O Calico (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Career homicide

Why? 70.53.24.119 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain a bit more than that, IP? Dumuzid (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Shifting lead sentence

Can we please come up with a consensus to stick to the opening lead sentence of the article, it's constantly shifting and loosing focus. He is not primarily a journalist, whoever changed it too that is doing the article wrong. The last thing he did was the Netflix show, that in essence is a TV presenter! His focus from author and writer shifted to secondary? Jeez. The language skills here are falling back to the stone-age! Govvy (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

In my experience this is typical of 'controversial' articles. The majority of edits fuss over the lead, and especially the first sentence, while the rest of the article is barely touched. My own personal rule is to try to do at least one substantial edit to the body for every change to the lead. – Joe (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerning language skills: “loosing focus” - find one flaw. Also, it seems sneaky and manipulative not to mention that he’s also a journalist. Obviously an attempt to make him seem less credible, as a writer can more easily be discarded as a “fiction-writer” as opposed to a truth-seeking journalist. Be better. Tdawgh (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

After watching out of order three of his eight Ancient Apocalypse episodes, He is definitely a journalist. But he is a crusading journalist engaged in a passionate mission have his ideas about a lost advanced civilization to be treated as serious science; to drive people he regards as corrupt and dogmatic "money changers out of the temple" of science; and warn humanity about the dangers of the Taurid meteor stream, which could end the civilization. Paul H. (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me guess: the criterion on whether he regards someone as corrupt and dogmatic is that they reject his ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite true, that is basically is his criterion. Crusading journalism can also be based on ignorance instead of knowledge. Paul H. (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

All he needs to do is publish his ideations in a peer reviewed journal. That's how science is done, (partly). That way, there will be no doubt of his sciencyness. - Roxy the dog 04:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey Wiki

Hi there Wikipedia I’m here taking time to sincerely ask you for the most logical request someone might have. Please authorize Graham Hancock to be the sole moderator of his page. This is the least you can do. 2600:1700:EEC4:8080:BD9D:E7B9:ECAE:461C (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This kind of request must be made at one of the community pages like wp:teahouse. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, it does not have a chance. Hancock has power over his own channels, and Wikipedia is not one of them. Does he have ambitions for dictatorship, determining what is said about him everywhere, or is it just you who wants a pseudoscience monoculture in all media? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Since Graham Hancock has used his recent Netflix documentary to reject the work of the entire archaeological community, he is the last person who would be suitable to have any editorial input here. Wikipedia never was, or ever will be a person's vanity page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a great idea. - Roxy the dog 14:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Actually, scratch that. I thought of a snag when thinking about the topic below. -Roxy the dog 08:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A message to Hancock admirers

If you have ideas about stuff, do some science, like this guy. Roxy the dog 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw this in the news this morning as well. Ben Bacon is an amateur, but he has done excellent research that impressed professional archaeologists. Meanwhile, the Graham Hancock fan club continues to turn up at Wikipedia and repeat the line that their hero is immune to criticism by mainstream academics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I laughed when I saw that he was working with a Durham Uni Professor. Durham is Graham's Alma Mater. - Roxy the dog 09:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

See also Michael Ventris. You don't have to be a professional academic to do good quality work, but you do need to have academic rigour.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Moderator change.

It would be in the best interest of Wikipedia and users of Wikipedia to have an unbiased moderator for this page. 184.71.72.62 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

But we dont have moderators, just us, ie you and me and anybody else that wants to help form a consensus here. - Roxy the dog 20:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought I was out, but I see that I am needed once more. Reluctantly, I will again take up the mantle of Lord High Moderator of Wikipedia. I look forward to the renewed professions of fealty. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We do have admins, if you think that there are problems with the editors who edit this page you can take it to wp:ani, I would suggest that would not be a good idea. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Please remove all non-neutral comments about Graham Hancock's work.

The describing of Mr Hancock as a "pseudoscientist" & so on, is purposely done to discredit his ideas, which, if so poorly constructed, could be discredited by using some sort of scientific analysis of his claims, instead they are summarily dismissed as "pseudoscience".

This is simply not good enough & unacceptable in our modern age, when such slander of respected commentators is obviously partisan & used to hide the fact that his opponents do not substantively address his claims,queries &/or propositions. The material evidence he points-out,is also left uninvestigated, that's not a very scientific response to his claims either.

I find this slanderous approach to Mr Hancock & his extensive work/writing, to be risible as well as unnecessarily vitriolic. Please amend this TERRIBLE review of Mr Hancock & his work asap. 94.193.62.179 (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:nlt, it is not slander, and it is all sourced to wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you think he is a respected commentator. Perhaps he is, amongst true believers, but honestly, get real. - Roxy the dog 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

On amusing, his book Supernatural. Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind was published by The Disinformation Company.[15]. I note also that according to Kirkus Reviews he writes pretty good pseudoscience.[16] I doubt anyone called Lords of Poverty "spectacularly shameless but highly entertaining." I'm guessing he makes a decent living out of it all, good for him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

How is pseudoscientific considered to be NPOV? The Wikipedia page for pseudoscience states “Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method”. Can we ascertain that such an author meets this definition with his claims? binary.dat (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:NPOV, the neutral point of view is that of reliable sources. The reliable sources cited call Hancock's works pseudoscientific and pseudoarchaeology, hence that's the NPOV.

Pseudoscience has many definitions that are differ slightly. Note 1 of the Pseudoscience wiki page has additional definitions. Cambridge defines it as: "a system of thought or a theory that is not formed in a scientific way", Collins dict: "a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science". Hypnôs (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Would a philosopher be considered a pseudoscientist then by that definition? It would seem that be the case which doesn’t make very little sense in logical terms. Philosophy supersedes science and is the formation of it. It seems very hard to make a claim that philosophical dialogue can be pseudoscientific. binary.dat (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Would a philosopher be considered a pseudoscientist then by that definition? Doesn't matter. The only question relevant for Wikipedia is: do reliable sources call that philosopher a pseudoscientist? For Hancock, that is the case. This is the Talk page for Hancock, so, everything else does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Source of ongoing disruption?

See [17] ​Ancient Apocalypse host Graham Hancock gave a lengthy, self-pitying interview to London Real in which he celebrated his own bravery while offering a series of oxymoronic and illogical arguments in a sustained attacked on Wikipedia, archaeology in general, and one archaeologist in particular. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Nice to know we have an impact! – Joe (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I note that according to the source, he does describe himself as (in effect) a scientist. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Please change all of your references to Pseudoscience or pseudoarcheology to science and archeology…. There are over 100 scientists who agree with him. 2600:1016:B100:FC01:D0E6:D138:8716:711 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hypnôs (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Although it is immaterial to the request, it is should be noted that Hancock stated "over 100 scientists" support the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. There is nothing that I can find about "over 100 scientists" supporting his specific ideas. This is said just over an hour into his December 12, 2022 interview in Graham Hancock, Epsisode 539, Duncan Trussell Family Hour. Paul H. (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

How about you remove anything calling him a psudoscientist and pseudoarcheologist as he says he is not an archeologist or scientist Ogular (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We agree with him, he isn't a scientist or archeologist, which is what pseudoscientist and pseudoarcheologist actually mean. Therein lies the problem, he's claiming all his nonsense as if it was real. Roxy the dog 18:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

source where he says that his claims are "real" and "factual"? Is he not entitled to his opinions and interpretations? Also I would say that you are clearly biased against him, and so should not be anywhere near this page in any capacity. It's a sign of this site's compromised state that an openly prejudiced person like you is so easily allowed to provide your opinions here. I hope that you aren't empowered in any way on this page/site, tho at this point it would be laughably hopeless to hope for something like that. Ritwikvd (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I am in fact the Deputy Supreme High Panjandrum of Wikipedia, empowered to clean all the toilets and empty the bins. -Roxy the dog 08:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course he is, and we express them here. But what he is not entitled to is to have those opinions go unchallenged by qualified experts. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)