Talk:Graham Hancock

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Graham Hancock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 14 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why does the article say that Hancock's ideas are pseudoscientific?

A1: Hancock has written numerous books and has made television documentaries, but does not submit his work for peer review in mainstream academic journals. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources and do not present theories as valid if they are not supported by experts in the relevant field. When Hancock's work was examined by mainstream archaeologists for the BBC's Horizon documentary series in 1999, academics were critical of aspects of his work, and after a complaint by Hancock and Robert Bauval, the Broadcasting Standards Commission found only one point of unfairness in the documentary.[1] Hancock has ample opportunities to promote his work through his own channels, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Unless his work undergoes peer review and is accepted in the academic community, it cannot be presented as having equal validity to work that has undergone peer review.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Alternative Views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Digging Into an Ancient Apocalypse Controversy From a Hopi Perspective

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3]. Pseudoarchaeology is more precise and accurate, and I would rather that term is used. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe reverted it last time[4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Pseudoscientific" and "pseudo archaeological" "Scientific" and "archaeological", because the man himself clearly stated that he found this ridiculous. G12427 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is neither a subject expert or an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who do his personal opinions matter on the topic? Lostsandwich (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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". ^[1]. He has also has expressed support for native rights.^[2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DL1_EMIw6w&t=14479s
^ "The Strange and Dangerous Right-Wing Freakout Over Ancient Apocalypse". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2024-04-26.

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DL1_EMIw6w&t=14479s

[2] "The Strange and Dangerous Right-Wing Freakout Over Ancient Apocalypse". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2024-04-26.

[1]

[2]