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)