Talk:Graham Hancock

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

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)

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

 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)

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

Graham Hancock does not appear to have absolved any kind of schooling in archeology, yet still makes many claims which go against common scientific consensus without providing a sufficient amount of supported evidence. He also has been shown to exaggerate evidence, or to ignore previously disclosed facts (for example the fact that the "Bimini Road" has been extensively proven to be a stretch of beach rock, yet he claims it to be an Atlantian road in "Ancient Apocalypse"). In turn he would fall under the very defenition of pseudoarcheology.

I think that in turn it is reasonable to refer to him as a pseudoarcheologist in his wiki-article. SomeCatOnTheInternet (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

He is an investigative Journalist! He’s never claimed to be an archaeologist! Why can’t you put his actual information out there? Whats the point of locking his wiki so no one else can edit it and refuse to do any requested edits unless you’re trying to slander him? He is an investigative journalist. He goes where the story is and asks questions! Whoever is running wiki this wiki page is ridiculous. 2601:803:900:4B10:94D3:D505:D3D6:2259 (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is semi protected to prevent vandalism. Anyone with an auto-confirmed account can edit it.

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources have said about a subject. It is not a fansite.

The article does not say that Hancock claims to be an archaeologist. The last paragraph of the lead explains why Hancock is not doing investigative journalism. Hypnôs (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

YOu do not have to be an archaeologist to carry out "pseudo archaeology", in fact if anything the exact opposite is true, "pseudo archaeology" precludes you from being called an archaeologist. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Definition of pseudoarcheology as per Wikipedia:

Pseudoarchaeology (sometimes called fringe or alternative archaeology) consists of attempts to study, interpret, or teach about the subject-matter of archaeology while rejecting, ignoring, or misunderstanding the accepted data-gathering and analytical methods of the discipline. These pseudoscientific interpretations involve the use of artifacts, sites or materials to construct scientifically insubstantial theories to strengthen the pseudoarchaeologists' claims. Methods include exaggeration of evidence, dramatic or romanticized conclusions, use of fallacious arguments, and fabrication of evidence.

Unfortunately he does not just ask questions. In his most recent work "Ancient Apocalypse" he asks the question "Was there a highly advanced, globe-spanning civilization at the end of the last ice age?". By itself this would be just a question and you'd be right.

However, Graham Hancock proceeds in the following eight episodes with exploring various, presumably unconnected archeological sites (or sites that aren't even archeological, i.e; the Bimini-"Road") and claiming that they are older than scientifically accepted with little to no evidence. This is pseudoarcheology, making him a pseudoarcheologist. As pointed out by User:Hypnôs and User:Slatersteven one does not need to claim to be part of the archeological field to become a pseudoarcheologist. As per defenition, one only needs to make enough unsubstantiated claims about archeology.

I hope this clears up some confusion. SomeCatOnTheInternet (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

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.

---

Extended content

1. GH was indirectly, but clearly, accused of various serious things. a. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse b. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix c. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled d. https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis e. https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/ f. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-07/experts-say-ancient-apocalypse-netflix-series-is-racist-untrue/101728298 g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse h. https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881 i. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13965425/ancient-APOCALYPSE-comet-Netflix.html 2. I updated the article providing a RS source saying that GH strongly, and in no uncertain terms, rejected such very serious allegations. a. Joe Rogan Experience #2136 - 2:02, 2:08, & 2:19. b. Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremacist, etc., 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. 3. I was reverted, and then I reverted...twice, which I freely admit was wrong, although an honest mistake. My sincere apologies. 4. I was given an "edit warring" warning on my home page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_the_Cat_7 a. I responded, saying, "I provided an RS, which apparently you didn't agree with. We can discuss it on the talk page should you wish, but I honestly believe you are the one who is "edit warring". Let's take this up on the Talk page. Bill the Cat (talk)" 5. That didn't seem to satisfy User:Hemiauchenia. Instead, the user opened a ticket to the Edit Warring WP site (I can't find the link for this; it may have been deleted), as well as this RS site. a. Note that I said I was willing to discuss it on the Talk Page of GH. a. This might be WP:WikiBullying, but I'm not sure and I'm not claiming that it is. 6. The SAA article claimed that "Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic." a. Most reasonable people would agree that these are strong accusations and defamatory if they are not true. According to GH, these accusations and defamatory statements are very much completely false. 7. I'm NOT suggesting that the article from the SAA be in any way removed or censored. I think it's important. In fact, I think it ought to be expanded to explain what exactly is being claimed and why. However, I maintain that an accurate and equally clear rebuttal in GH's own words, must be included in the article. 8. With the policies linked below, I can provide another RS for GH's full response in his own words (not in WP Voice), to most or all claims leveled against him. Although this discussion should have been explored on GH's Talk Page, my hand has been forced, so I'm engaging here. I can update GH's Talk Page with these points after this has been resolved. a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources 9. I haven't seriously edited WP in a quite a long time (12+ years). Forgive me if I don't have neither the time nor inclination to engage in such matters on a regular basis. I'm just a WP Gnome at this point. Nevertheless, much of the article is a direct attack on GH's theories (pseudo this and pseudo that, etc.). Fair enough, since they are sourced. A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications must be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable. Thank you. ~~~~ Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you actually suggesting? As far as I can see, the self-published source you've provided can at best support the statement "Hancock denies being a racist or white supremacist". I don't see the point of including this, though, because it's kind of a given that he would make such a denial. Almost everybody denies being racist – especially after they've done something racist. – Joe (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't see a point in allowing the person in question to defend himself against obvious defamatory claims? Seriously? If the accusations are true (although WP is not concerned, for good reasons, with "the truth"), they are NOT defamatory, but that's the pertinent question, right? GH should be allowed to respond for purposes of neutrality, even with self-published sources, per self-published sources policies. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course he can respond. That's got nothing to do with us; we're an encyclopaedia, not a forum for debate. The question is whether adding "Hancock denies being a racist" to our biography is adequately supported by sources (yes) and useful to readers (probably not, because what else would he say?) – Joe (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

People saying that "Graham Hancock has promoted ideas of racist origin" is not the same as saying that he has been indirectly, but clearly, accused of being a racist and white supremacist. If you can't understand this basic distinction then you have no business editing Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that seems to me to be clearly hostile and a personal attack, which I find very offensive. Perhaps you should assume good faith. At this point, I think you are engaging in WP:WikiBullying. I would much rather discuss this in a civil manner, but your last statement makes it difficult, although I will continue to engage civilly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:CIR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Another passive-agreesive attack. You sure you want to continue along these lines? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to take me to WP:ANI to report me, be my guest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to include something on Hancock's response, this article from the Express is (surprisingly) a better source. – Joe (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We already says he denies it "Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist, and has expressed support for native rights.". |Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, right. What are we even talking about here then, Bill the Cat 7? – Joe (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You started this thread, I assume you know. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Erm, I didn't? – Joe (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I saw your ping and thought it was a signature, sorry. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References

I'm going to need a few days to respond. Please be patient.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:IDHT. Pretty much nobody either here or at RSN has agreed with you, and at this point it is time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it ok if I was allowed time to respond? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Will it actually be a new argument or just the same failed argument restated? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll create a new section (topic), with undoubted reliable sources as well as keeping with WP editing policies, and we can contine from there. Is that fair? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

For GH's response. I think we would all agree that a person is entitled to defend himself against allegations.. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We already say he denies it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

As @Joe Roe said, "...it's kind of a given that he would make such a denial. Almost everybody denies being racist – especially after they've done something racist." (Italics added.) What/why, specifically, does his denial entail? Shouldn't casual readers of this article know that? Nevertheless, I still seriously need a few days to propose a new edit. Please be patient. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Then just suggest a text, that is all you need to do. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2024 (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 22 October 2024

Suggestion to remove reference to pseudoarcheology and pseudoscientific studies in the first paragraph. The citations do not support this information. Cw1983 (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The terms "pseudoarchaeological" and "pseudoscientific" are used by the cited sourced. Studies are not mentioned in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnôs (talk • contribs) 09:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This entire article on GH is absurd and politically driven. Not politically driven as in partisan Left/Right politics but in the sense that science and archaeology are very politically driven. Everyone who slanders this guy should forget “pseudoscience” and look up the Scientific Method itself and how it’s used in science itself because GH and his work absolutely fits within the definitions of both. He posits theories, asks questions, and looks at evidence for his claims. He IS a real scientist AND a real journalist. Many people simply have a vested interest in minimizing him and his work. 216.193.154.160 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Odd, I thought he had said he was not a scientist. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Coming up with theories and then looking for evidence that suits your theory while discarding evidence that doesn't support it is not the scientific method. It's confirmation bias. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Confirmation bias also exists with the creators of this entry. But it is their personal property. So I suggest a Pro Graham Hancock wiki entry and a Con one clearly marked. Provide the public access to full disclosure and let them make their own decision instead of playing god. Stegowhite (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Hypnôs (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Account created in 2009 but only contribution is this post here? Very strange... D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

70% of people who create accounts never end up making a single edit, see Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits#Determination_of_ranking_as_a_percentage. It's not really that remarkable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)