Talk:Graham Hancock/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Character defamation

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.

---

This entire article does not seem educational or insightful. Wikipedia should be used to provide all information, bad and good. It should not be used as a political platform to promote "mainstream" science and archeology by personally attacking someone. The "pseudoarcheologist" term should be added as a separate subsection within this article, rather than having the term used in the opening sentences. This defames him immediately and gives the reader a negative view of him, rather than an informative understanding of all his works.

Even if his works are not correct he should not be labeled or referred to in this way.

The edit im proposing is adding a subsection that explains who refers to him in this way, why his studies and research can be seen as pseudoarcheology and to remove him from the pseudoarcheology wikipedia article and the references to him within the article. Caleab (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong that Wikipedia should not promote "mainstream" science and archeology. That is exactly what it should do. See WP:FRINGE.

If you have reliable sources that contradict the consensus that he is a pseudoarcheologist, bring them, and then we can reevaluate the article's stance.

Until then, the reliable sources we have beat (the shit out of) the opinion of some random person on the internet (you). --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

But he's an AUTHOR. Not an archeologist of any kind. Pseudo or not, the article sold reflect his actual work. Double standards here, on one hand Randall Carlson is not a graduated geologist, but Hancock is an archeologist? TheCaptain70 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

We say he is a writer, we do not say he is an archaeologist (quite the opposite in fact). And who is Randall Carlson, I do not see him mentioned in this article?Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

But he's [..] Not an archeologist Exactly. Pseudoarcheologists are non-archeaeologists who talk nonsense about archeaeology. That is why reliable sources call him that, and we quote those sources. On Wikipedia, reliable sources are stronger than you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

you sound like a sheep. it is the responsibility of media platforms to present various aspects of academic arguments without bias, and to question the mainstream narrative. otherwise we would all be robots (which, evidently, 127 of the edits on this page are.) Katielyne99 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Bots are not a bad thing on Wikipedia, although sometimes they do not function as intended. You can find out more about them on WP:BOTS. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

See wp:nlt. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There is little to no mention of his journalism in some of this world's most acclaimed media platforms (such as The Economist or The Times.) Neglecting to inform the readers of Hancock's credentials only serves to reveal this page as embarrassingly/conspicuously biased. Also who wrote the first and second paragraphs of this biography. The grammar/sentence structure appears to have been constructed by a semi intelligent 5th grader Katielyne99 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely character defamation. Any biography should begin by discussing a figure's credentials - not other people's' perception of their alleged theories. Katielyne99 (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, it is your contention that the order of information makes this article defamatory? Dumuzid (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Archaeologist Flint Dibble says Hancock's claims "reinforce white supremacist ideas, stripping Indigenous people of their rich heritage and instead giving credit to aliens or white people";

• I believe this quote should be removed. At no point has Hancock ever referenced the skin colour or suspected race of his theorised ice age information super-spreaders. I have spent many hours reading and listening to GH and have found myself less interested in it academically but rather interested in him as entertainment. But this claim from Dibble is baseless and inflammatory at best, making this about white supremacy is a typical tactic to evoke emotion in people instead of trying to engage in a dialogue that helps people learn why things are really mis-information. Can we ease up on the culture war please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyOwen2000 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If easing up on the culture war means we abandon the pursuit of truth and accuracy, I'll pass, but to each his or her own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you spent "many hours reading and listening" to his critics? Because 5 minutes would tell you that Dibble's description has plenty of basis. – Joe (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Two WP:SPAs with one edit each. Maybe this one will respond, the other didn't. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So? ever hear of the term dog whistle? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This might be interesting[1]. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

In Fingerprints of the Gods Hancock made repeated reference to white or whiteskinned civilizing agents. He even used the term bearded as interchangeable with white under the faulty assumption that no indigenous people are capable of growing beards. He also asserted that some pre-contact depictions of people were "distinctly caucasian." He changed this to "distinctly non-native" or words to that effect in Magicians of the Gods. 2600:1008:B03C:7BE8:0:1F:A3B7:5201 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Show me one reference of him saying these people were white. I don't believe he did, and I don’t believe you have read it. Lots of cultures that aren’t white have beards as a signal of strength. Arabic, Indian and Aboriginal Australians all have been referenced as holding beards as a symbol of some kind and that’s just three off the top of my head. It is such an American centric view to decide because America’s Native people don’t have facial hair than that applies to every indigenous person in the world.

I don’t buy what Hancock is selling at all, and I can’t believe I am defending him in a way. But by making this whole thing about him being racist rather than describing why he is wrong, you’re abandoning all reason and scientific integrity. You’re everything you accuse him of being, lazy and inflammatory for the sake of it. TommyOwen2000 (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you read Fingerprints of theGod's. The book where he discusses skin color. You obviously haven't. Also, Hancock is the one conflating bearded and whiteness. I suggest that you read Fingerprints of the Gods. While you are reading it check out the part where he described the Maya as "jungle-dwelling Indians" who needed outside help with their technological developments. I suggest that you read Fingerprints of the gods. 2600:1008:B0AB:916D:0:4B:F03F:6901 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

Please replace the word "pseudoscientific" with another less biased and presumptive description. Clearly the author has beef with the subject, this personal view shouldn't be reflected in Wikipedia articles. Terrible writing in general, but that specific word needs replacing or removal. 2601:284:8202:5750:551:F590:1194:25D6 (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2023 (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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, see the FAQ at the top of this page about why the term pseudoscience is used. Robincantin (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

Change Pseudoscientific Theories to Alternative Theories 154.47.107.104 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

See talk page archives for all the answers to this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree to alternative theories. 2 votes v 1. Consensus started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.67 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That looks like two votes either way to me. And with my vote, it's three to retain the current phrasing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As I've said before, "alternative theories" is like saying that 2 + 2 = 5 is alternative mathematics. This is an invitation to WP:FALSEBALANCE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached by voting. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Hypnôs (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say alternative theories? Doug Weller talk 18:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Another day, another dollar

The "editors" that wrote this scathing Wikipedia page HATE Graham Hancock. This entire page on him is filled with biased opinions and false statements, and no edits are allowed that go AGAINST their hate of Graham. Graham is an investigative journalist. He states constantly he's not an archeologist. Open your mind to other possibilities, think outside the box. 72.39.196.252 (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC) You need reliable sources to counter the existing reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) I think we should reverts rants, esp from one-off IPs. Doug Weller talk 06:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC) I agree. I think we reached the peak of those comments many months ago when one of them accused us of committing "career homocide" against Hancock (lol). None since have really been entertaining enough to warrant keeping. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

A thought?

I don't know if there's any precedent for it, but could we perhaps add a notice or a template or some such saying edit requests that do not strictly follow format will be deleted without answer? I feel a compunction to not do that currently, but I wouldn't so much if we had something like that. Just an idea that occurred to me. Hope everyone has a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Most people who post those edit requests will ignore any notices. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We already have a Q&A explaining why the page says he presents pseudoscientific concepts and the arbitration ruling about pseudoscience, yet the edit requests we get are about that. One more yellow box is likely to be ignored, methinks. This being said, I salute your generous disposition and your gentle soul. Robincantin (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree with you both, and thank you for the kind words Robincantin. My thought, however, was less about preventing disruption than dealing with it. Unless the edit request that comes through is really entirely baseless, I personally feel like they can't be summarily removed. It's entirely possible that I am just being a bit squeamish, but if we (in theory) had a notice like that, I would feel justified in just summarily erasing the borderline requests, rather than answering them. But again, this is probably more subjective to me than anything, so I get it. Thank you both for the feedback! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Improper Source

Source 6 in the first paragraph of the Pseudoarcheology section is incorrect. It does not disprove anything it is mentioned in that article but is not supported by fact. 108.168.7.171 (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

First, according to Wikipedia standards, The Conversation is a credible, reliable source and Dr. Flint Dibble is an accredited, well-respected, well-published archaeologist. Finally, simply stating something is incorrect and not supported by fact without reliable sources to support your opinion and any proposal about how to improve the article is not at all helpful and does nothing to improve the article. Simply cursing the darkness accomplishes nothing. Paul H. (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hancock and his ban from Egypt

Dr. Zahi Hawass had Hancock banned from Egypt for causing a public fight after Hancock bullied and insulted Hawass.April 2015. I was a direct witness to the fight. 2600:8801:100F:AA00:54DA:3C03:C22D:485D (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Your claim of being a "direct witness" does not matter, because it is not verifiable. Even if you took footage of the fight as proof, it would still be a WP:SPS, which is prohibited per WP:BLPSPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

Please include a section on the controversies surrounding Hancock. He has been accused of “stealing other researchers work” (accusation from Dr. Robert M Schoch, Professor of Geology). The biggest thing that’s missing on this page is that Hancock has been banned from Egypt, and especially the Pyramids at Giza. This comes from a public fight at the Mena Hotel in Cario in April 2015. Hancock publicly ridiculed and insulted Dr. Zahi Hawass prior to a debate. It devolved into a shouting match with Dr. Hawass declaring he will see to it that Hancock never steps foot in Egypt again. Hancock was the main aggressor and instigator and badgered Hawass until he blew up. How do I know? I was there! Hancock knew in advance he was going to pick this fight and he had a camera man at the ready to record it. I was sitting directly behind the cameraman. I can attest to Hancock being the bully and aggressor. Hawass was absolutely right in having Hancock thrown out of his country.

There are many controversies with Hancock and at least some of them should be included on this page. 2600:8801:100F:AA00:54DA:3C03:C22D:485D (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)In

While this is an interesting anecdote, you've provided no sources, and unfortunately, "I was there, trust me bro" isn't good enough. We need reliable sources covering these claims in order to justify inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

What else can I provide? There is a video floating around YT that shows the aftermath of Hancock instigating the fight. It shows Hawass growing angrier and then blowing up and banning him from the country. Hancock is back on the podcasts; Joe Rogan, etc and he’s talking extensively about his ban from Egypt. If he’s out there talking it up there should be plenty of sources. Just pick out any of the podcast and YT interviews where he’s discussing it and there’s your source. In fact, the recent podcasts include “Hancock banned from Egypt” in there titles.

I don’t understand all this Wikipedia stuff. I’m a boomer. This stuff confuses me. I’m just telling Wikipedia that Hancock’s page needs to include all the bad things he’s done.

I was an eyewitness to what happened in Egypt. That’s as far as I can offer 2600:8801:100F:AA00:54DA:3C03:C22D:485D (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this the fight footage you're talking about? [2] I assume this is the Joe Rogan clip you're mentioning [3]

Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This was afterwards. They were scheduled to do a debate, but Hancock arrived early and put up an extra large headshot of Hawass’ enemy “Robert Duval” on the overhead TV monitors. Duval was not there and had nothing to do with the debate. Hawass asked Hancock to remove the image and Hancock refused and then demanded that Hawass defend himself against what Duvall said months prior, which again had nothing to do with the event that night. Hancock was intentionally bullying Hawass and poking him with insults until he lost it and said the debates off and told Hancock with a pointed finger “I will see you will never step foot in Egypt again”. As I said already Hancock knew he would provoke Hawass into a fight bc he had a cameraman there at the ready. My husband and I were early to the event and sitting directly behind cameraman.

The video you referenced is not the fight. The fight occurred prior to the presentations. Hawass stormed out and the event coordinator convinced him to return and give a lecture. The debate between Hawass and Hancock was now off the table Both guys gave separate talks Hawass’ was quite interesting. I sat and chatted with him a dinner

The video with the actual fight is on YT. If I can find it again how can I post a link? 2600:8801:100F:AA00:54DA:3C03:C22D:485D (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just paste the url in the comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

PLease read wp:v and wp:or, we can't include it unless wp:rs have commented on it (per wp:undue). Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to find an article in the major Czech newspaper Lidové noviny that mentions the incident. [4]. This article in Cairo Scene is also potentially usable [5], but I don't know the website's reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those say restrictions have been placed on Hancock's access to Egyptian sites and honesstly, it looks more like gossip than journalism. Not everything belongs in a wikipedia article, it's ok. Robincantin (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Looking at google, the incident got barely any coverage so I agree that it probably isn't due for inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The maya

The Maya are portrayed by Hancock as only "semi-civilized" and their achievements as "generally unremarkable" to support the thesis that they inherited their calendar from a much older, far more advanced civilization.

Well this is 100% lie and polar oppisote to what Graham says.

Just fix these errors! 212.247.37.162 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Well we have a source that says otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

in his own words [[6]], so yes he says they inherited their calender. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It's verbatim what Graham says:

Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods, p. 160: "...glaring disparities he had identified between the generally unremarkable achievements of the Mayas, as a whole and the advanced state of their astro-calendrical knowledge"

Page 162: "Why did the ‘semi-civilized’ Maya need this kind of high-tech precision? Or did they inherit, in good working order, a calendar engineered to fit the needs of a much earlier and far more advanced civilization?" Hypnôs (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Graham Hancock

he’s an investigative journalist. The people who created this page locked it because they’re the archeologists against him🤦🏽‍♂️ 2600:100C:B212:6799:D187:D86E:91EE:7205 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Not according to rs. Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What are examples of reliable sources with regards to this?Halbared (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The ones we are currently using. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's rarely useful to reply to one-off IPs using this talk page inappropriately, ie as a forum. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, and if it had been left with my reply this would be over (A week ago). Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

This page has been hijacked by people that hate Hancock. This page needs to be unlocked for honest editing 2600:6C4A:717F:9358:B121:D7C4:6255:7721 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - edit requests need to be in the concrete form of "change x to y" per the notice above. General complaints are not actionable in this way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Faulty Sources

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.

---

I've been combing through the sources provided below, and I've discovered there are quite a few cannot be considered reliable.

The first one is Garrett G. Fagan. According to this site, he was a "...historian and writer known for his research in the various areas of Roman history, as well as his critique of pseudoarchaeology."

Immediately noticeable is his lack of any sort of scientific background, yet he is known for his critique of psuedoarchaeology. This man formulated a critique about a an archeological topic without any actual archeological experience. None.

Can one critique a scientific topic without applying the scientific method? I don't think so. At least not in an unbiased way. There is no evidence that he is qualified to make an unbiased or educated critique of anything specific at all.

His accolades only include a Ba and a PhD, neither of which are archeological in nature.

Additionally, his educational background includes colleges and universities that are not recognized by ANY archeological societies.

I recommend that this source be disqualified, and all information credited to him be removed immwdiately.

I have a little over a dozen more, but I'll allow tine for a rebuttal. TheOminousDarkness (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

[Redacted] and troll somewhere else, you ridiculous little bogus rocket scientist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

WHen did archaeological societies start recognizing universities? Another show of ignorance. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Liberace famously said that when he was criticised "I cried all the way to the bank". Graham Hancock could do this, because he makes far more money than an average archaeologist. Yet he has an enthusiastic fan club who will attack anyone who points out that mainstream archaeologists do not believe in lost civilisations and similar theories.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A BA in Ancient History and Archaeology and Biblical Studies isn't archaeological in nature? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No but he was Professor of Ancient History at Penn State University, so he knows about history. And as Mr Hancock (as he keeps telling us) is not an archeologist, I am unsure you need to be one to critique his work. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You all are replying to an editor that makes claims about himself that are patently false (he claims he will email me with proof but it's clear he's no scientist and there's no evidence of such a person on the web, if there were he could have linked it to me in his talk page conversation with me). Let's not feed the troll. This needs to be hatted IMHO. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 2 November 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023

Graham Hancock is a journalist, not a pseudoscientist. Can you please remove this incorrect description of him. You may not agree with his theories, but in that case he'd just be a journalist who is wrong. EastonNotStJudes (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done He's described as a "writer", not a "pseudoscientist". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated sources and claims

I have yet to see a single example of an unbiased statement on this page.

The sources listed are questionable at best. None of the sources provided have been verified for accuracy. In fact, much of the source material has been altered and even fabricated.

Archeology - by its very definition - is nothing more than theoretical speculation. Graham Hancock has repeatedly and publicly stated that he is a journalist and nothing more. To accuse this man of promoting "pseudoscience" borders upon libel and slander. This is hardly the behavior that should be permitted to make it publicly to a Wikipedia page.

Supposedly, Wikipedia prides itself upon unbiased and reliable information, and Graham Hancock's page is certainly an exception to the standard that one should expect and deserves.

Furthermore, the term "pseudoscience" carries a connotation that implies that it is less than other sciences.

Yet, all science is theoretical until unequivocably proven to be 100% true. As of now, MIT, Harvard, Yale and dozens of other prestigious institutions have honored Hancock's contributions, yet I see that mentioned nowhere.

It is necessary to make changes to this page, especially by removing the reference to pseudoscience. In place, it should be journalism.

How do we go about making these changes to accurately reflect the truth?

Sincerely,

Jefferson Caldwell, senior physicist of research and development, NASA. TheOminousDarkness (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't substantiate sources in the way you are suggesting. Our goal is to create an overview of the topic, not to debate epistemology with every article. If you have some specific reason to believe the article's sources are unreliable or are being misrepresented, please explain it. Please note that your personal agreement with the conclusions of sources is immaterial.

Our goal here is to summarize reliable sources with a preference for independent sources. Additionally, as a tertiary source, we reflect the mainstream position as reflected in those sources. Sources are not required to be "unbiased", and instead, our summary of those sources should come from a neutral point of view. So, if sources are overwhelmingly skeptical of Hancock's claims, the article will reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your claim that "much of the source material has been altered and even fabricated" is a big one to make. Do you have any proof of this? Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@TheOminousDarkness You clearly know nothing about archaeology. Or science for that matter, and because of that I don't believe you are a scientist or anyone named Jefferson Caldwell. Archeology does involve making hypotheses, yes. But obviously it can date sequences in strata, for instance, and say that this came after that and very often through C14 and other methods tive approximate dates.

Science is about testing hypotheses to form theories and little can be proven 100% true. Your ignorance is shocking.

And your lies. You cannot prove that Harvard, Yale, etc have honored Hancock. You're lying. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:rs and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You want even more evidence to disprove his arguments that have no evidence? What more could you need?

the problem with people like Hancock is they are allowed to say whatever they want without any evidence- but those disproving their fabrications are expected to have entire bibliographies of flawless sources into order to negate their ridiculous assertions.

he has no evidence for any of what he claims. That is pseudoscience. Deal with it. GonzoTribune (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

This presentation seems immensely biased with ad hominem. I know he is a kook but please present the information in a more nuanced and neutral tone, as to simply present the facts rather than seek to persuade your audience to hate him. 2603:8080:F901:F45E:A03E:964A:3E8B:765F (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2024 (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. Jamedeus (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Psuedoscientific vs. Semi-Scientific + Natural Science vs. Social Science

Greetings,

I'd like to encourage the editor gatekeepers to change the first sentence of this article, especially with a different term than "pseudoscientific" theories, though I also suggest the term "journalist" along with "writer" since he does both writing & documentary TV + podcasts.

The biggest problem with the current wording stating Graham "is a writer who promotes psuedoscientific theories" is that he himself doesn't present or refer to his theories as psuedoscientific, so it's not sufficiently accurate to say that he promotes pseudoscientific theories. Rather, various critics have used that term to describe his theories, which is already covered later in this article. So the current wording presents a value-judgment about his work, quite distict from a factual/encyclopedic report.

Though I haven't delved deeply into Graham's career portfolio overall, I have checked it out enough to suggest the following (especially based on what I saw in "Ancient Apocalypse" relative to what I see here)...

Consider the fact that Graham often consults natural scientists in order to construct+reconstruct narratives; though the narrative is dramatized for the public, it is rooted more in sociological & anthropological interpretations of human history, using natural science to back it up. At the very least this makes his theories "semi-scientific" moreso than "pseudoscientific", but also it would be even better to distinguish between natural science & social science, especially since the guy does have a degree in sociology, which clearly influences his approach to archeology. It also seems to influence his willingness to say "maybe..." or "could it be ..." or "I think" whenever its a theory or hypothesis rather than a scientific fact. Perhaps the opening sentence of this article could read more like:

"Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950) is a British writer & journalist who promotes controversial theories involving ancient civilizations and hypothetical lost lands by consulting natural scientists from a dramatized social scientific perspective."

Or something along those lines ...

In Peace, Yeshua YeshuaCreates (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, people who present pseudoscience don't describe it as such, obviously. As for the rest, your personal interpretation of Hancock's works as 'anthropological' or 'sociological' are of no relevance, since we base article content on published reliable sources, not contributors' own opinions. And per such sources, Hancock's claims have no support from within anthropology, sociology, or the natural sciences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of the page. No mainstream academic supports Hancock's theories, and there is a risk of WP:FALSEBALANCE if this is not made clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@YeshuaCreates: please do not edit your posts after they have been responded to. [7] See WP:TALK#REVISE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry about the extra edits; I was fixing typos before I saw any response.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not so sure you grasped the point of what I was suggesting. I wasn't basing my suggested edit on my personal opinion of his work (though I can see how my comments might've given that impression). Rather, I am simply trying to express that the current wording presents a less-than-encyclopedic value-judgment that could be more accurately worded. Because the term pseudoscientific implies "false claims" under the guise of scientific method whereas Hancock doesn't even claim to be a scientist, nor to have proven his theories with hard evidence. So I believe saying that "he promotes pseudoscientific theories" is more fuel to the controversy of his claims than it is a factual description.

Even the the social scientific aspect I mentioned was a description of his perspective in constructing narrative, not a claim to his research methods (and I do have a degree in social science, by the way). But you could take that out and it would still be a more properly impartial statement:

"Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950) is a British writer & journalist who promotes controversial theories involving ancient civilizations and hypothetical lost lands by consulting natural scientists from a dramatized perspective." YeshuaCreates (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is a value-judgement in the description, it is the value-judgement of the sources we cite, Because that is what we use sources for. And I note that you have offered absolutely no source for your characterisation of Hancock "consulting natural scientists" for his theories. As for your social science degree, welcome to the club. Nice to have, but not imparting any special rights when determining content. We go by Wikipedia policy, which is entirely clear in this regard: if the consensus is that something is pseudoscience, we say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the reply. I do have a better understanding of Wikipedia policy thanks to our interaction.

The reason I didn't cite a source for consulting natural scientists is that it's a self-evident description of what he does in his most recent work, Ancient Apocalypse. So that could be cited just with a link to that (https://www.netflix.com/title/81211003). But since you mentioned it, I also could cite this interview with a physicist/neuroscientist who runs an educational org called Pari Center https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3f5Hp9111c.

Anyway, it might seem just like semantics, but I'm just wishing y'all would better distinguish between mainstream consensus & encyclopedic accuracy when presenting controversial subject matter. YeshuaCreates (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned 'encyclopedic accuracy' is achieved by reflecting 'mainstream consensus'. It's been that way for a long, long time. It's core policy. It's how the place works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, the main voice advocating for equal treatment between mainstream and fringe theories was Larry Sanger. And he quit Wikipedia back in 2002. Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Roger that, @AndyTheGrump and @Dimadick. Thanks for clarifying. YeshuaCreates (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Pari Center isn't a reliably published source. We rarely use YouTube videos unless they are clearly and officially run by experts, news media meeting our criteria, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by what wp:rs say, qualified and recognised experts. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

False information provided

Hes a journalist not a scientist or archeologist 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Where do we say he is? Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

claims of racism with no evidence?

under the “pseudoarcheology” section it is claimed that hancock is linked to racism and white supremacy, the evidence of which are quotes from people who actively oppose hancock. Why would on a scientific description of a persons career include opinions instead of fact, especially opinions that demean and discredit the career? 216.175.38.109 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is based primarily on reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is false as the page currently written on Graham Hancock is not based on any reliable source as all sources cited here are of biased opinion with no supporting evidence thus not a reliable source even if its written by self proclaimed professionals this interpretation of Grahams work is biased and a insult to Wikipedia and its integrity to uphold the most accurate information 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, "reliable" is not defined as "agrees with the opinion of 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090". Instead, it is defined as described in WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

They seem to be attributed, so they are statements of opinion, not of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Disingenuous

It's probably not worth adding, but in GH's "debate" with Flint Dibble on Rogan's show, he stated that this Wik article on him was written by one archaeologist and that editing it was blocked. I just checked: its editing is restricted but not blocked, per Wik procedure on controversial living individuals. And there is a host of (often "warring") editors working on this site. 136.36.180.215 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I watched the interview and was surprised by the claim. If something is contested, a discussion can be opened. The majority of objections went towards the claims of using "racist" sources and not being able to edit that out of Wikipeida (as far as I can remember). I can even see this reddit post [8]. I've personally never been involved in this article. I've just read what the article says, and I can attest it just reports what SAA published. Bilseric (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

As his debate with Flint showed time and time again, Hancock isn't afraid to make claims that anyone can easily disprove: more than 50 people have collaborated on this article. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the parts that bother him, not the whole article. But at least with reporting who said what, there should be no complaints towards Wiki. Things were said and those are just reported here. Bilseric (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Joe Roe collaboration on this article? That's laughable. This article is tightly controlled by people with a certain view, and they absolutely refuse any view to the contrary. This is one of the most biased, imbalanced articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The people who have collaborated on this article write about Hancock from a mainstream perspective, rather than using it to push WP:FRINGE theories that are completely rejected by mainstream scholarship. It's pretty clear looking at your userpages that you don't understand the concept of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Your repeated endorsement of Larry Sanger is extremely eyeroll worthy and combined with your previous ranting about "bias" against Deepak Chopra etc makes it obvious that I shouldn't waste time responding to you after this comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Generalities will not improve the article. Please suggest specific improvements and provide adequate sources for them. Hypnôs (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've warned Jack.B.2007 about this before, see User talk:Jack.B.2007#Dec 22 on down. User:Slatersteven warned him for using talk pages as a forum, then I did also twice. He doesn't seem to care and has a huge gripe about Wikipedia. User:Hipal also had a problem with him. And see [9] and the rest of the discussion with User:Hob Gadling. ANI? Doug Weller talk 10:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, ANI. WP:AE might be appropriate as well. --Hipal (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of "White Supremacy" etc.

The clause:

"the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists."

is a textbook example of the Genetic fallacy and the Ad hominem logical fallacies. Charles Darwin was a racist, and his theories were used by fascists, the KKK, white supremacists , et al., extensively . Does that mean his theories are wrong? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

But Hancock did not originate them, he just repeated them, after it was known they were white supremacists. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

So?

The phrase given above is a quote from the Society for American Archaeology which is made clear in the article, it is not being stated in Wikivoice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was just addressing the basic point, as to why the Genetic fallacy maybe a fallacy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

A logical fallacy is a fallacy? Please elaborate.

I did above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content.

Hancock's "theories" are not wrong because they have racist origins, but because they are factually inaccurate and contradicted by archaeological evidence. That they still have racist implications is a separate points. Hypnôs (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a waste of time, see this old discussion. Talk:Sphinx water erosion hypothesis#Missing archaeological evidence and Talk:Sphinx water erosion hypothesis#Here is a summary of what I would like this article to make clear Doug Weller talk 14:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hypnos That's right, and I have no problem with that. Criticism should be based on archeological science, not Genetic and Ad hominem logical fallacies. To ascribe racism to GH is irrelevant...unless a person's goal is to throw mud and see what sticks. I could be wrong but doing so may be a violation of BLP. Not sure. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There's also a significant difference between using a theory that was created by a racist (like Francis Galton's theory of regression) and using a theory that is itself racist in content (like Francis Galton's theory of eugenics). Hancock's assumption that non-white people weren't capable of building things without help from an elusive lost civilisation definitely falls into the latter category. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, that is the Genetic Fallacy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's properly sourced, so it's none of our business to sort out if that amounts to a fallacy. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fine, but there is no rebuttal to that source. An entry saying something to effect that GH rejects this assertion would be beneficial to the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you be satisfied, if we add this rebuttal?

"Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist, and has expressed support for native rights." Hypnôs (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea per WP:NPOV. I don't think that Hancock's work is deliberately setting out to be racist in the same way as the Nazis or the KKK, but he has laid himself open to charges of eurocentrism by implying that non-Europeans needed help from a mysterious lost civilisation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Hypnos and Ian. That would definitely be appropriate. @ian, Just a small point. Eurocentrism cannot be applied to GH's theories, since he is talking about events that happened about 11-12 thousand years ago, when there was no meaningful definition of "European". Thank you, both Hypnos and Ian!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as we have a source for that? – Joe (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes we need a source saying "Hanckock has denied this". Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

See the link I provided below in my response to Joe.

It's not the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is dismissing an argument because of where it comes from instead of its content. Archaeologists don't dismiss Hancock's arguments because they come from a racist source. They dismiss them because their content is racist (and factually implausible and totally lacking in empirical support etc. etc.) – Joe (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Dismiss them because they are "factually implausible and totally lacking in empirical support etc. etc.".

Not because they are "racist", which is a completely subjective opinion and has nothing to do with archeological science.

As you stated perfectly in the second part of the your last sentence ("factually implausible...etc.") , that is what the article should reflect. Racism is outside the scope of archeological science. I have no problem with charges of racism in the article, as long as there is a rebuttal.

GH was genuinely hurt by those charges, as he made completely clear in the Flint Dibble debate on the Joe Rogan show [10] (relevant part begins at 4:19 to the end, but the whole show is worth watching), in which he disagrees vehemently with those charges. Therefore, to keep to a neutral point of view, a rebuttal is necessary. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I am an archaeological scientist and can tell you that (anti-)racism is certainly relevant to my work. Racism, apart from being morally abhorrent, is scientifically false. If a theory in archaeology or any other field is racist, it is wrong. I learned this in my very first year of university and apparently the membership of the Society for American Archaeology, the largest professional society of archaeologists in the world, whose letter you are objecting to, agrees. I'm curious on what basis you are challenging our understanding of the boundaries of our field.

Anyway, Doug had it right from the beginning: there's no point engaging in discussion unless you have some specific, source-based changes to this article to propose. – Joe (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The story is like this: he is a racist in respect to Ancient civilizations; he is not a racist in respect to present-day people. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I assumed good faith but, frankly at this point, I don't believe you are an archeologist. Why? Because archeology of 12000+ years ago has nothing to do with racism as it is understood today. If you disagree, please provide some evidence that racism has any meaning for your conjecture. Also, I did provide a source. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, someone from the "Institute of Archaeological Sciences" pays my salary every month, that's enough evidence for me. – Joe (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the racism critique of his work stems from his theories being viewed by others as belittling or demeaning the achievements of native and indigenous groups, which have long been rooted in the colonial mentality that only those of european origin could build such great monuments or make scientific discoveries, thus it had to be someone else who brought it to them (hence why terms like "eurocentric" are used). And while Hancock has distanced himself from that view, his Ancient Apocalypse series decided not to film in the US due to protests from native groups. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

GH did not "distance" himself from charges of racism. He flat out rejected those charges. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a written source for this? In principle we could cite the YouTube video you linked, but it's not ideal. – Joe (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That semantic distinction is more just splitting hairs for me. I'm not denying Graham doesn't see himself as having that racist view of prehistory. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Water is wet, and racists hate being called racist more than racism. News at 11. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

see WP:MANDY. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an essay on NPOV. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE "denials should be reported too".

This source sums it up well:

Some critics have therefore already accused Hancock of – at least, latent – racism. Whether one can accuse him of an intentional racist attitude, I dare to doubt, ...[11] Hypnôs (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist, and has expressed support for native rights." We do. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought the point you were trying to make with WP:MANDY is that it should not be included. Hypnôs (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I am saying we should not give it undue coverage, we say he denies it, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Digging Into an Ancient Apocalypse Controversy From a Hopi Perspective

[12] Thanks to User:Paul H. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Embarrassingly POV & non-BLPSTYLE

I'm embarrassed that an article like this is on Wikipedia. It must be possible to summarize all the dumb shit Hancock thinks without sounding like an attack page. For example, it's easy to say that someone is outside of mainstream archaeological opinion and promotes fringe beliefs without having to assert that he is a pseudoscientist, since it's actually a little hard to understand exactly what that means other than it's clearly not a good thing.

I'm going to stick NPOV on the article for the moment. Maybe we can talk about whether we still need it when its fixed up a bit. Dingsuntil (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't "assert that he is a pseudoscientist". We say that he promotes pseudoscientific theories (hard to understand, really?). He is not just "outside of mainstream archaeological opinion"; he persistently attacks and demonizes mainstream scholarship using a rhetoric borrowed from conspiracy theorists. About the tag: do we have to leave the mainstream and cite fringe sources in order to restore NPOV? –Austronesier (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally am not a big fan of the pseudoscientific in the opening sentence, because Graham Hancock by his own admission is not trying to write objectively or scientifically. His writing is part of the current of Western esotericism/the occult, influenced (directly or indirectly), by the works of people like Helena Blavatsky as noted by John Hoopes [13]. Pseudoarchaeology is more precise and accurate, and I would rather that term is used. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe reverted it last time[14] with the reason: "Think we should stick to "pseudoscientific" in the opening sentence because Hancock's work abuses multiple scientific fields (primarily archaeology, but not only) and it is probably more familiar to a general audience."

I wouldn't mind replacing it with pseudo-archaeological, mainly because it's preciser and to some laymen pseudoscientific implies Hancock being a scientist. Hypnôs (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the same people would think (wrongly) that 'pseudoarchaeological' implies that he is or claims to be an archaeologist. – Joe (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

After some more pondering, I think the crucial question is:

Is Hancock's pseudoscientific work that is not about archaeology significant enough to mention?

He wrote about the Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, alien structures on Mars, psychotropic drugs, climatology, ...

I would say that is enough to not limit the lead to pseudoarchaeological, so I'm changing my 'vote'. Hypnôs (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dingsuntil It sounds like you object to the tone and thoroughness of the article, which in not a NPOV issue.

Which view(s) of reliable sources are not adequately represented in the article? Your only example was about a single word you would like to have changed. Hypnôs (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Pseudoarchaeology is a type of pseudoscience. Even if we didn't have sources specifically stating that Hancock was a 'pseudoscientist' (we do), one would imply the other. Since both labels are supported by a large body of reliable sources, I don't see how either is a POV problem. Pseudoscience/pseudoarchaeology is not simply about holding non-mainstream belief. Most archaeologists probably have one or two of those; I know I certainly do. It's that claims in a scientific subject are arrived at in an unscientific manner, i.e. without reference to empirical evidence or logical reasoning. It does not matter if the author claims to be a scientist or intends to produce scientific work – it's a description of the output. This is exactly what Hancock does and how reliable sources describe him.

I'm still in favour of using 'pseudoscience' in the lead because it is a more commonly understood term and because Hancock's work does not only abuse archaeology (though it's his main target). Further down, we can specify and introduce the term 'pseudoarchaeology'. I'm concerned that removing 'pseudoscience' from the article entirely plays into the rhetorical gambit, sometimes used by Hancock and others, that archaeology is not a science and therefore that more amenable to bullshit that 'real' sciences. – Joe (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I favor the use 'pseudoscience' because some of what he has writtened about geology, e.g. the Missoula Floods, Quaternary geology, sea level rise, and YDIH, involves pseudoscience unrelated to archaeology. The attribution of the Missoula Floods to the start of the Younger Dryas and a single catatsrophic event and even the gross overexaggeration of its magnitude are psuedoscience. Also, 'Fingerprints of the Gods' endoreses Hapgood's cartographic and geologic pseudiscience wholesale. The 'pseudoscience' involves more than just archaeology. Paul H. (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the lead to "pseudoarchaeological and other pseudoscientific theories", which I hope can satisfy all parties. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

So, despite the existence of (supposed) RS stating he is a pseudoscientist, what makes him so specifcally not a pseudoscientist that we need to tiptoe around it? Lostsandwich (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion

Regarding the recent edit war, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Joe_Rogan_Experience. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent clarification provided by a RS

I was reverted twice without a WP justifiable reason. I'm open to discussing the RS which I provided. Here is what I want to add for clarification:

Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". . He has also has expressed support for native rights.

This is absolutely true according to an RS and in line with WP policies. We can exclude the word "defamatory" should there be a consensus, but being accused of being "racist", etc., is certainly defamatory.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As I noted at RSN, can you provide a reliable source that the SAA has explicitly called Hancock a racist and white supremicist, rather than just saying he's promoted ideas that are racist and white supremacist in origin? There's frankly, a massive diffrerence between the two. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Its an SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2024

A change from “pseudoscience” and/or “pseudo archaeologist” should be removed per the individual himself stating he is an investigative journalist and finds the aforementioned terms “absurd” 66.76.20.102 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say about a subject, not what people claim about themselves. The article describes him primarily as a writer, which is correct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Cornish Descent

On the most recent Joe Rogan episode 2214, Graham Hancock said he was of Cornish descent. Please can this be added here as well as on famous cornish people. 147.147.131.168 (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Its trivia, but it would not as far as I can see be a major issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Flawed argument

If these quotes are correct, he merely claims that "large regions", not ALL of Antarctica, had been ice-free. Therefore it's irrelevant that he wouldn't mention the possibility that much of the ice may very well have been there much longer. This should be removed as an attack on credibility.

Hancock wrote that "the best recent evidence suggests that" large regions of Antarctica may have been ice free until about 6,000 years ago, referring to the Piri Reis map and Hapgood's work from the 1960s. What is left entirely unmentioned are the extensive studies of the Antarctic ice sheet by George H. Denton, published in 1981, which showed the ice to be hundreds of thousands of years old. 2600:1702:5E73:5600:1CA5:FA5C:D8B9:2814 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hancock's claim of large areas of Antarctica being ice free until 6,000 years is from a geological perspective, absurd (Antarctica as been essentially completely ice-covered for the last 5-10 million years, millions of years before the start of the current ice age) and completely refuted by evidence from paleoclimatology and ice cores. If Hancock's claim had any merit it would be mentioned in the extensive scientific literature discussing Antarctica and its ice sheets, but it's not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The "best evidence" that Hancock has presented is very antiquated and decades old; incorporates a discredited dating methodology, and for unknown reasons overlooks literally dozens of contemporary and more recent studies that refute his conclusions. For example, since Hapgood's research in the 1960s, literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers, master’s theses, and PhD dissertations have studied the grounding line of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and location of the seaward edge of its associated ice shelf in the Ross sea embayment since the Last Glacial Maximum. They have used sidescan sonar and seismic reflection to map surface morphology and internal stratigraphy of the bottom of the Ross Sea. Also, innumerable sediment cores have been taken from the bottom of the Ross Sea to determine and map the lithology and environments of deposition of these deposits and date them using a variety of independent methods. Finally, using diatoms, foraminifera, and other microfossils from the sediments in these cores, the paleoenvironmental conditions under which these sediments were determined and mapped for the Ross Sea from the Last Glacial Maximum to present. These studies, and similar ones for the Weddell Sea, demonstrate that the greatest expansion of West Antarctic Ice Sheet occurred at the Last Glacial Maximum and it shrank with a few minor readvances to it modern limits. The largest known "ice sheet-free" area, now covered by grounded ice, that existed prior to 6000 BP was patch of Ross Sea that existed from 10,200 to 7,900 BP. Even it was at that time flooded by the Ross Sea and covered by a thick floating ice shelf and uninhabitable. Similar research has been conducted all along the coast of Antarctica and returned the same results for the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and refuted the idea that it had even "largely ice-free" since the Last Glacial Maximum.

If you want that statement changed, you will need to present a reliable source that supports Hancock's assertions independently of either Hancock or Hapgood.

Some random examples of the above publications are:

Ackert Jr, R.P., Mukhopadhyay, S., Parizek, B.R. and Borns, H.W., 2007. Ice elevation near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet divide during the last glaciation. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(21). open access

Anderson, J.B., 1999. Antarctic Marine Geology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 289 pp., hardcover (ISBN 0-521-59317- 4),

Bart, P.J., Anderson, J.B. and Nitsche, F., 2017. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JF004259 Post‐LGM grounding‐line positions of the Bindschadler paleo ice stream in the Ross Sea Embayment, Antarctica.] Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 122(10), pp.1827-1844. open access

Bart, P.J., Krogmeier, B.J., Bart, M.P. and Tulaczyk, S., 2017. The paradox of a long grounding during West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat in Ross Sea. Scientific Reports, 7(1), p.1262. open access

Ingólfsson, Ó., 2004. Quaternary glacial and climate history of Antarctica. Developments in Quaternary sciences, 2, pp.3-43.

Kingslake, J., Scherer, R., Albrecht, T., Coenen, J., Powell, R., Reese, R., Stansell, N., Tulaczyk, S., Wearing, M. and Whitehouse, P.L., 2018. Extensive Holocene West Antarctic ice sheet retreat and rebound driven re‐advance. Nature, 558, pp.430-434. Paul H. (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Evidence not addressed

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This entry focuses on a character assassination of Graham Hancock. It does not address many of his material observations, such as the quality of the stonework which forms the foundations of buildings that known primitive societies built on top of with inferior quality stonework. This entry and the one on Ancient Apocalypse are hostile and sarcastic, inviting the accusation of argumentum ad hominem. I was looking for a critique of Graham Hancock's evidence and arguments, but I find criticisms of him as a thinker, without citing evidence to support them, which is not scholarly. The constant repetition of 'pseudoarchaeological' and 'pseudoscientific' is a case in point. The attempt to discredit him as a racist is also highly unworthy of a scholar. No evidence of this is presented, and indeed Hancock consistently speaks of ancient peoples and civilisations with great respect. It is also untrue that Hancock posits an advanced civilisation that left no written language. In his second Ancient Apocalypse series, he speaks of the as yet undeciphered Rongorongo writing of Easter Island, and indeed suggests that its significance was lost due to the disruption of Easter Island's cultural tradition through the depredations of white Europeans. As a result of the entry writer's concentration on discrediting Graham Hancock, I have found nothing in this article that provides the factual critique I sought about his arguments. Hopefully someone will write another, more informative entry. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC) We go by what RS said. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Well, that is also not very informative. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC) What do you mean, our article cannot analyze his work only repeat what others think about it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Your article could provide alternative theories to his, on the basis of the evidence he presents. That is how scholarly debate is conducted. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC) No, we say what RS say about his theories, what we do not do is engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE by treating them more seriously than the RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Scholarly debate is conducted in scholarly forums – not Wikipedia. Our job is to write encyclopaedia articles by summarising what reliable sources have said about a subject. If you're looking for factual critique, I suggest following some of the links in the references and further reading section. On Ancient Apocalypse specifically, this video series is very good. – Joe (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC) But you have not summarised any reliable sources; that's what I was looking for. How do reliable sources counter Hancock's claims? It isn't enough to repeat 'Unscientific! Unscientific!' and 'Racist, Racist!' If I had asked undergraduates to summarise reliable sources and was handed this entry, it wouldn't have got any mark at all. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC) If you think the critiques in the article's sources amount to just saying "Unscientific" and "Racist" over and over, that's on you. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC) I haven’t seen any critiques from sources, that’s the point. My comment is about your entry, which doesn’t cite source material. 2A02:8084:223:AA80:65A0:F3F5:CCB1:B2AC (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC) The article cites arguments from the 2006 book Archaeological Fantasies by Garrett G. Fagan - is that the kind of source you're looking for? Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC) I would like a summary of evidence and theories that refute Hancock’s rather than on Hancock himself. Has anyone presented alternative theories for the evidence he gives? If so, what are they? 2A02:8084:223:AA80:65A0:F3F5:CCB1:B2AC (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC) The entire #Pseudoarchaeology section of this article does exactly what you're asking for here, including citing specific sources and authors like Garrett Fagan. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC) No, it doesn't. There's a lot of archaeological evidence Hancock looks at that is not addressed at all. I don't think we are getting anywhere, so maybe we should just stop. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Just brushing off the mountains of evidence against him as "oh it doesn't cover everything in the archaeological evidence" isn't very helpful here. Again, it's on you for not looking at what's been given to you multiple times. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC) 'It's on you' is not a grown up response, I'm not even sure what it means. If there is a mountain of evidence, show it to me. That's all I've been asking in every reply I've sent you. I can't make it any clearer than that, and if you still don't understand, please leave me alone. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC) First off read WP:ONUS and wp:NPA secondly, we do to have to cover (and can't cover) every claim he makes, just demonstrate that the main arguments are flawed, after all even a broken clock is right twice a day. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC) I understand what you mean, and I say "it's on you" because it's clear you seem to just be dismissing everything we've given you without actually reading them. What you're asking for can be found in what's cited in the article, like Archaeological Fantasies which I've mentioned multiple times, and this Skeptic article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC) I am not dismissing anything. I am saying that attacks on a person do not constitute a refutation of that person's argument. The way to do that is to cite Hancock's theses one by one and then present other people's refutations of them. It isn't good enough to say 'Go read this book'. A good Wikipedia entry should summarise the arguments for us. In other words, this was not a good way to write this entry. It would be worth revising it as a whole, rather than trying to patch it up. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC) The Pseudoarchaeology section of the article I mentioned before does exactly what you're asking for here: It presents his theses, and offers refutations of them from cited reliable sources. I'm not sure what you think should be different about it? I kept bringing up the books because you insisted the article wasn't good enough and you asked for more specific reliable sources. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC) This is how it should be done https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj8096 Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Does that say anything we do not already cover in our article? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC) No, it contains just as little actual rebuttal. But it puts it in some context. I find it hard to trust people who accuse someone else of speaking nonsense when they don't back up what they say with evidence. The reaction to Hancock seems rather hysterical. What I want to know is: if the human footprints found between two layers of mammoth footprints aren't evidence of ice-age humanity, what is it evidence of? And if sophisticated heat-moulded rock structures are found underneath more primitive layers of Mayan rock structures, who built them? I have no prejudices one way or another, I would just like to hear alternative theories, not just screams of 'He's not scientific!' Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC) But it says nothing different to us, so anything it says must be already here, so what it covers we cv over, ego our article must be at least as good as that one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC) I haven't read anything that gives me any facts. I would have thought that the entire archaeological community between them could have produced one good refutation of one of Hancock's arguments. The point for you isn't whether your Wiki entry is as good or better than another similar article, it's this: Are you really curious about the world and people? Because it's curiosity, a real need to find out, that makes a scientist, indeed any scholar. Don't waste time worrying about this or that article. As Kipling's mongoose would say, 'Go and find out'. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC) I don't understand what you are upset about. First, the White Sands fossil footprints have been discussed extensively in multiple peer-reviewed papers in highly respected peer-reviewed papers. It is quite clear that the scientific community is very interested in them and takes them very seriously. Finally, although Hancock rambles on about Palenque and the Maya calendar, I don't remember any "heat-molded" stones associated with the Mayans being mentioned in Ancient Apocalypse. Apparently, you are referring to the Incan site of Sacsayhuaman (Chincana Chica). The best that I can find, this is the idea that the local rock can be softened for use as building blocks by some still unknown process. A variety of methods involving plant juices, heat, and so-called geopolymers has been proposed. Despite all of the talk, nobody, including Jesus Gamarra, has yet published a detailed description of how either heat or plant juices were used to soften stone in a reliable source that can be used in Wikipedia. Their discussion has all been vague, non-specific speculation and arm-waving "published" on fringe messsageboards, blogs and videos. To be taken seriously, someone needs explain in detail a reliable source exactly how this was done and replicate these processes using the type of stone used at Sacsayhuaman. For them, it is long past the time to put up or shut up. The geopolymer method has actually been published in scientific journals. So far, It appears that nonone either takes either geopolymers or its papers seriously enough to either mention or comment about them in print. In addition, nobody has reported having successfully replicated this process using the type of stone used at Sacsayhuaman. Wikipedia articles are not long enough to provide a claim by claim discussion of every fringe claim posted to the Internet. Paul H. (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC) I am not upset at all. Thank you for the information you have provided. It didn't require many words, so it would be worth adding to the entry, if only as an example. In the same way, it would be worthwhile devoting a few lines to the footprints in White Sands. These things, at least, refer to physical evidence, so are worth mentioning in the entry. The theory of heat moulded stones is discussed in Ancient Apocalypse: The Americas, which has just come out on Netflix. I haven't intended to annoy anyone; I am a retired academic and I have just been needling you to try to get some factual information. So thank you for your information on the unreliability of Hancock's theories. This would be more convincing, however, if the critics produced some alternative theories of their own. Then there could be a scholarly discussion. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC) What do you mean by "alternative theories of their own"? When they critique his work that's inherently what they're doing. Paul H. even spelled out one of them in his comment. Harryhenry1 (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC) I thought this was going to be dropped? Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC) http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462&article_id=3531896&view=articleBrowser https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-netflix-theory-explained.html 👍 Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC) This needs closing, as it is going nowhere fast. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC) This is a hijacked profile that’s his critics have locked so they can attempt to degrade this man’s life work. Unlock the profile! 2601:803:900:4B10:94D3:D505:D3D6:2259 (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)