Talk:Graham Hancock/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

Please remove the pseudoscience remark 68.231.62.251 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

See talk page discussion above and the archive. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. 💜  melecie  talk - 13:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's suppose that Wikipedia editors can reach agreement on an accurate definition of what qualifies someone to be labelled a pseudo-scientist (rather than its use as name calling mockery). It will have to be careful with the time issue, so as not to disquality 'proto-scientist' Galileo. Of course, that distinction might require input from real science historians (instead of the mocking of dilletantes).

Further suppose that Hancock qualifies by that definition. Then to be consistent, Wikipedia needs to go through all of its articles and apply that label just as dispassionately to *all* of the 'amateur scientists' throughout history.

That task might begin with Sophus Tromholt, for example - who is called an 'astrophysicist' in that article (he took photos of auroras) ... and is said to have established 'a scientific northern lights centre'. Now take a look at his credentials. Was *he* a real scientist? Twang (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is thinking way too hard about this. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. That frees us from having to make these sorts of judgment calls. Do the sources get things wrong? Sure. Where reliable sources get something wrong, so will Wikipedia. Simple as that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
A, We do not call HIM a pseudo-scientist. B, Even if we did many of the " of the 'amateur scientists' throughout history." are (as you point out) "proto-scientists". C, being an "amateur scientist" (which Hancock is not he is a journalist) does not mean you are a pseudo-scientist, what makes you a pseudo-scientist is claiming to use the scientific method to promote fringe theories. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Twangv And you seem to have been around enough to know there is no "Wikipedia" that can go through all relevant articles. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

Remove the word " pseudoscientific " Di angelo42 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a fitting word, so no. - Roxy the dog 08:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion: we create a bot that says "remove the word pseudoscientific" on the talk page every day. This would save Hancock's fan club the time and trouble of doing this. One more time, Hancock's theories are not accepted by mainstream academics.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
In all seriousness, maybe an FAQ or editnotice could help? – Joe (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes and no, I have never known them to stop this kind of drive-by IP. but does mean all we have to do is say "see FAQ" and close it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
See the talk page above and the archives. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Orion thing trivial

There must be a source somewhere which says that the Orion correlation "theory" is just a banal "oooh! there are three things in a row! and oooh! there are three other things in a row!" and does not deserve the status of "theory". It is so stupid for Wikipedia articles to talk at length about that crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"The unspectacular observation that the three main pyramids at Giza resemble the [belt of] Orion was worked up into a grand scheme
that pointed back to a date of 10,500 BC [...] and suggested matters of deep spiritual importance." "The original OCT argued for
a wider pyramid map of Orion that included monuments beyond Giza [...] subsequent history of the OCT [...] is a story of steady
retreat." Fagan p. 38
It never had the status of a scientific theory, it's just a name. Like string theory, which has "theory" in its name but isn't a scientific theory either. Hypnôs (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It is none of the things (if not the main thing) that set him on the path of pseudoscience. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Let me just make a somewhat forum-y submission to say the Orion correlation, as sort of implied by Professor Fagan, is entirely reasonable as an explanation for the offset design of the pyramids at Giza. It only goes off the rails with the whole "the Nile is the Milky Way, so 10,500 BCE" nonsense. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It's similar to ley lines. Find a few things that line up, and hey presto, infer whatever you like from it. It's not trivia, and is one of Hancock's best known claims.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It simply CANNOT be a coincidence that any two sacred sites you choose can be connected by a straight line. Q.E.D. Happy Monday! Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC) ETA: this was my attempt at Monday morning humor, and no hard feelings if it is unceremoniously undone. Cheers!

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950) is a British writer who promotes pseudoscientific[2][3] theories involving ancient civilizations and lost lands.[4]

In above text add after who: by some persons account

Add after lands, [4; however this is not how he views himself. Add reference after himself (London Real, interview with Graham Hancock on YouTube). 87.104.36.133 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: When the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are united in an opinion, we can speak in Wikipedia's voice and don't need in line attribution. As to your second request, see WP:SPS. Cannolis (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This uptick in complaints about the word "pseudoscentist" amd "pseudoscience" is starting to feel like brigading. Paul H. (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Pretty sure this is continuing fallout from the recent London Real video I mentioned above, which continues to rise in views. Eventually the view count for the video will plateau and the rate of comments here will slow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The way he called out this coverage specifically seems directly related to the incoming complaints. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Drive by wp:spa IP's, it does not matter how many separate threads are launched, what matters is WP:RULE based arguments, not the number of accounts that make the point. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

Please change the first line Graham Hancock is a promoter of pseudoscientific theories”

He is a journalist and it would be the right thing to do, to state this instead. 120.20.125.233 (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

He is (or at least was) a journalist. This is covered by "writer". He also promotes pseudoscientific theories. This fact has been extensively discussed above and is supported by citations to reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
He can be both. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Saying that he is a journalist does not mean that professional archaeologists are banned from discussing or criticising his work. This is a weak argument.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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

I agree and support this action. Please remove biased, minimizing commentary/description of Graham Hancock as promoting pseudoscience or describing this individual as a pseudoscientist. 2601:643:200:1520:85F3:9C82:ABF5:8917 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Your quibble (as well as Mr. Hancock's) is not with Wikipedia, but the reliable sources which cover him. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sentence para three suggests a requirement which does not exist.

The third paragraph states: "His writings have neither undergone scholarly peer review nor been published in academic journals". This sentence is arbitrary - his work as a journalist wouldn't be expected to be peer reviewed or placed in a scientific journal, it's simply placed in the public domain for people to consume (or not) as they see fit. The inclusion of this falsely presents the requirements of his position and should be removed. JagHiroshi (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not. Well sourced in the lead, (which isn't necessary), and supported and well sourced in the body text, there is no reason to remove it. -Roxy the dog 18:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hancock's inquiries and musings into antiquity are not really within the ambit of journalism; when he wanders into other fields, it is fair game to point out the strictures that specialists in those fields typically undergo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It would be ironic for academics to suggest that Hancock's work is pseudoscience - yet also believe that academics are entitled to decide what is and isn't journalism. The sentence is superfluous and suggests a requirements has not been met, which evidently by his profession he does not need to meet. This could be construed as misleading, suggesting that the page is not meeting its requirements to provide due neutrality, hence mismanaged. That academia has contested his views is already well established in the article. JagHiroshi (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It simply notes that Hancock has not undergone the same vetting that academics in the field normally do. To take an extreme example, if he were to perform surgery and it was noted that he had no professional qualifications to do so, "he's a journalist" would strike me as equally unavailing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The sentence is superfluous as his profession does not require him to submit to peer review or scientific journals. This page has a requirement for neutrality and could confuse readers that he has not met his professional requirements (i.e. is an attempt to undermine his integrity rather than truthfully describe his position). JagHiroshi (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It does if he writes about (or in) a scientific area. And we would do our readers a disservice to not point out how his claims do not have scientific credibility. If we do not do that we might mislead our readers into thinking his work has been accepted by the academic community. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This suggests a misunderstanding. Everyone is entitled to put forward theories and viewpoints on any subject. Hancock does not claim to be an academic nor does he compete for research grants (he's privately funded), hence he is not required to undergo peer review or publish in a scientific journal. The sentence is unnecessary and suggests a misleading requirement to readers by its presence. Remember, this is not an article about academia's views on Graham Hancock - it's a Wikipedia page about the individual. If he'd suggested he was an academic and it transpired his work had not been published or peer reviews, then it would be another matter. JagHiroshi (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
"Everyone is entitled to put forward theories and viewpoints on any subject." Sure. Just like everyone can feel emboldened to offer cures for medical conditions. But doing so comes with the risk of being scrutinized by the medical profession and WP reporting about their verdict. Dito for someone who makes claims about the origin of monuments from the ancient past (which is the natural realm of archeology, which is an academic science). –Austronesier (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe the mention is relevant, since it concludes the paragraph of the lead that examines Hancock's "interpretations of archaeological evidence and historic documents". As for the reminder that "this is not an article about academia's views on Graham Hancock", an overview of criticism he's getting from professionals in a field he's been writing about for the past 30 years certainly has its place in the article. Robincantin (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely. Academia should be free to contest his work and frequently do. However, that's a very different matter form the editorial request I've put forward. A journalist is not required to submit to peer review or scientific journal in the same way an academic might be. The presence of this sentence therefore is not required. It's a simple but fair point and I'm surprised that it's seen as a point of contention. JagHiroshi (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
One of the actual joys of Wikipedia for me is that it will often challenge notions I take as axiomatic. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hancock has never been particularly well known as a journalist. He is best known for his huge-selling books that put forward the "ancient lost civilisation" hypothesis, which is clearly rejected by mainstream academics. As the lead section points out, his work as a journalist in the 1980s was considered to be OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
But Hancock calling himself a journalist who extends the method of journalistic investigation to things in the far past is an essential sophistic device of his, and not without impact, as we can witness in this very thread. But there are not many reliable sources that adopt (or better: fall for) Hancock's self-designation. So the contention that a journalist's work doesn't have to be assessed by standards other than journalistic ones is based on a very contestable premise. –Austronesier (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
A person could say "I'm a journalist and my research tells me that 2 +2 = 5" but they should not hold their breath waiting to win the Fields Medal. As has been pointed out in this thread, Hancock uses self-designation as a journalist to bypass academic scrutiny.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between science refuting the work of a non-scientist, something which they're free to do, and suggesting that anyone who talks about a subject to which science has already enquired must be subject to scientific methods of review. Clearly, this is not a standard we demand in the world, which is why this sentence in particular came to my attention. JagHiroshi (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
No one suggested that "anyone who talks about a subject to which science has already enquired must be subject to scientific methods of review".
You keep conflating the statements "Hancock does X" and "Hancock is not allowed to do X". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not undue to point out that works containing original research that are disseminated as an "alternative" to science (which is not journalism), have not gone through peer review. Hypnôs (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In addition, it is considered the ethically duty of a scientist to "Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters." in many codes of scientific ethics. Regardless of what a person, who is misleading people, even out of pure personal ignorance, about scientific matters, calls hisself or herself and publication venue, there is a ethical duty for a scientist to point it out. Paul H. (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
":Yes everyone does, and those views must be challenged by experts if experts decide to. We then must repeat those assessments. In the same way as if a journalist says "Person X is a chicken strangler" we have to put what experts think about that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

Grahm Hancock states clearly in a recent interview that Wikipedia represents him falsely by claiming he is a pseudoscientist. 69.117.106.63 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done apologies, but there are two issues here, one procedural and one substantive. On a procedural level, as the templates says, this really should be a concrete change proposal--"change X to Y." This is getting close, but I don't think is concrete enough. Secondly, I am sure Mr. Hancock thinks his work is being misrepresented. And that is indeed evidence to be taken into account. In this situation, however, the consensus is that it is outweighed by the reliable sources who disagree with him. As I said directly above, it's not so much Wikipedia that is the problem, but the sources we use. That is where you or Mr. Hancock would really have to start to create this kind of change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This IP editor and previous editors need to understand that a "semi-protected edit request" is a request to the change protection status of an article and has nothing to do with the content of an article. In addition it is incorrect, even misleading, to claims that "Wikipedia represents him falsely by claiming he is a pseudoscientist." Wikipedia is not "representing" Hancock as a "pseudoscientist" or anything else. Wikipedia is only reporting honestly what the consenous of reliable sources are stating about Hancock. If 69.117.106.63 has an issue with Hancock being called a "pseudoscientist", he needs complain to the reliable sources and convinced them to change their minds. Wikipedia is only the messenger and has no control about what other people write about Hancock. Paul H. (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit requests are actually about content changes to articles, but I agree with the rest. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
My mistake. I apologize for my confusion. Basically, an IP editor is requesting a change that he or she cannot do because an article is protected. Live, learn, and eat a little crow some days. So it goes. Paul H. (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Here is what reviewers said about The Sign and the Seal: "Jonathan Kirsch of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "It's part travelogue, part true-adventure, part mystery-thriller. But mostly it's a whacking big dose of amateur scholarship alloyed with a fervid imagination and the kind of narrative that comes in handy when telling ghost stories around a campfire." Desmond Ryan of the Philadelphia Inquirer joked, "If [Hancock] did any more speculating than what is strewn through the many pages of The Sign and the Seal, he would have to go into real estate." These are things that reliable sources said about Hancock's work, Wikipedia simply reports them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Mr Hancock in not a wp:rs, also what would you want us to say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

To remove the statement following "The SAA also stated that the series". I'm not a fan of this person however this is clearly bias and should take a more neutral stance, absolutely nothing about his recent series or what I've read about Graham Hancock has anything even closely related to "racist, white supremacist ideologies" this being in his page is misinformation and wrong.

Information that came to light has also backed up the idea that this being put here is targeted as a result of prejudice against his findings alone. If this can't or won't be changed I'd appreciated an email explaining why so I can have a better understanding of what's going on. RitoDurito (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it is, which is why we attribute it, and I am goin to say that then SAA are clearly a body that is an RS for comments about archeology What is going is we are going by what wp:rs, say about wP:fringe theories. I would be interested for you to post here the RS that have found " this being put here is targeted as a result of prejudice against his findings alone". Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that Hancock or Erich von Däniken are deliberately trying to produce racist theories. The problem is that they have inferred that non-white Europeans would have difficulty producing advanced things unless they were helped by aliens or some kind of lost civilisation. This criticism has also been levelled against von Däniken.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I am unsure, which is why we go by what RS say. They may be directly racist, casually racist or just naive and do not realize what they are implying. But this is not a judgment we as editors can make., Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Not a pseudoscientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.127.98 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As has been said before by numerous editors, including me, Wikipedia is only honestly stating what a consenous of reliable sources have concluded and written about Graham Hancock. It does not matter what either I, 64.234.127.98, or any other editor thinks about Hancock being or not being a "pseudoscientist". It only matters what reliable sources say about Hancock being a "pseudoscientist". As a result, 64.234.127.98 needs to discuss this matter with the reliable sources and convinced them to change their minds. Wikipedia is only the messenger and has no control about what other people write about Hancock. Paul H. (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

In this link described a Graham like a investigative reporter so please remove pseudo from this description as far as I concerned he is a reporter there is no pseudo theories at all.

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock 2806:109F:10:9D3B:D038:B9D6:A30E:E63F (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not particularly interested in what the Spanish wiki has to say. See WP:USERGEN Cannolis (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
NO wiki is a wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This isn't new. Hancock describes himself as a journalist and his work as a narrative. This does not rule out the possibility of mainstream academics criticising his work.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023 (2)

"is a British writer" -> "is a British journalist and writer" Troopersho (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that change. sorry. - Roxy the dog 16:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It's also rather like a Tautology (language). For the last thirty years, Hancock has been best known for his books, although he was a journalist in the 1980s.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
This is redundant; journalists are writers. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Then it should be "is a British journalist and author" 149.97.165.53 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"Writer" covers both appropriately. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A journalist can be a writer, but not all writers are journalists. The issue is not that labelling Graham as a writer might be misleading, it’s that it is an injustice to his profession. If it is not necessary, then why are all other well known journalists described as such on Wiki? They are given their professions to provide the world with common sense accuracy, whilst for Graham this seems to be viewed by Wiki as an unnecessary edit and a necessary purposeful omission. Strange that a perfectly justifiable edit should be refused when it is requested for the purpose of accuracy and respect. Is this a definite no, Wiki? Wikiqwerty1101 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a quite a long time that Hancock actually did journalism. Sure, he labels his writing and TV shows he's done over last two decades as "journalism", but applying a more than unorthodox defintion of the term. Secondary sources hardly use the label at all to characterize his work. –Austronesier (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
[2] calls him a "pseudo-journalist". Not useable here, since it is a blog, but Carl Feagans seems to be on to something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Graham...accuracy 🤣 By the way, if you two are on first-name terms, perhaps you might need to declare a conflict of interest?  Tewdar  12:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking out the whole section off...

of pseudoarcheology as it serves only one purpose wich is to manipulate readers(neutral) opinion to a certain direction.

As for example one could replace that section with a text where Graham is calling arheology to not science whatever and make couple black dots and copy paste some fitting statements to manipulate readers opinion to a differeny way. Wich would be wrong and irretating aswell, so make wikipedia great again and take that fuckin thing off. And on the all the other places in our wourld as well. 85.76.5.167 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Or we could go by what actual experts in the subject say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia was never great. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Any reference to pseudoscience added to Wiki is an effective attempt to shut down something of extremely high importance to the people. This may be one of the biggest examples available that demonstrates Wiki’s unjust and perhaps indirect malice position on misinformation. They claim that they go with ‘what the experts say’ as they are reliable sources of information? Says who, ‘the experts’? That’s not justifiable when those experts work on a well known closed protocol system that doesn’t allow worthy and valuable outside opinions, simply on the grounds that they differ. Graham has been shown to have more field study than some of ‘the experts’ involved in this silly dismissive and combative push back reaction to his pragmatic yet complex work, which he carries out through sound methodical investigative processes. His competence on the subject is higher (in many cases) and - crucially - totally unbiased. Allowing the silencing of other experts’ (investigative journalists) work through mockery is an archaic danger to the people that has been proven to be such for years. Continue to lock this page down for the sake of protecting big egos, but know that it’s not the right decision to make for the world. I get that Wiki editors may feel that their hands are tied as they are only the messenger of information from ‘reliable’ sources. But I struggle with that when wondering who decides who is ‘reliable’. Of course, it’s Wiki. Why not, rather than consider the opinions of people who don’t like Graham (which is a very obvious contaminating factor of information), you consider what Graham himself has to say about the issue? He’s presenting evidence based ideas. Is that different to the approach ‘the experts’ and ‘reliable sources’ take? Archaeologists who are bruised by Graham’s findings, we get it… it stings. Maybe try looking at it as opportunity to further explore the unknown without allowing pride to get in the way. Or at least, if any of Graham’s evidence-based ideas are refutable (in the sense of being wrong rather than false), then close the book on them with evidence to the contrary that substantiates your position as the more accurate one. Don’t prematurely close the book on them and stamp the front cover with unjustifiable and malicious mockery. Simply, that’s clever minds acting out nonsense. To all Archaeologists, huge respect for exploring our past to help shape our future. To anyone who in any way acts to stall this process for any individual-based reasons, try reevaluating the benefits of doing so and consider the collective outcomes. Wikiqwerty1101 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but until 'Graham' gets his speculations published in a respected peer-reviewed journal (which is about as likely as his ancient Ice Age advanced civilization), he's going to be called a pseudoscientist in this article. So I'd find something better to do with my time if I were you.  Tewdar  12:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Well one way to be an expert is to have a qualification in the subject you are commenting on. Another way is to get published in reputable subject-specific journals. Another way is to be a member of a prestigious professional body. One way to not do it is to in fact deny you are an expert and instead just claim to be a journalist asking questions. Slatersteven (talk)
I did not completely read that wall-of-rant, it seems to be pretty uninteresting.
But your attempt to reasoning us into replacing the point of view of reliable sources and experts by yours is totally pointless. Wikipedia cannot do that, it would violate the rules. See WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk)
Above, you argued that Hancock is a journalist, here you talk about his "field work" – which is it to be? "Journalist" is not a profession that implies any kind of expertise in scientific or scholarly areas, and if he'd been doing any kind of investigative journalism he wouldn't have done his own "field work" but would have left that to the experts; archeological field work is carried out by actual experts (that is, archeologists), not by enthusiastic amateurs, for instance journalists with no training or credentials in the field. So, in fact, neither one nor the other. --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The main problem that archaeologists, geologists, and other reliable sources have with Graham Hancock in the sentence "He’s presenting evidence based ideas." is that the "evidence" that is presented is either horribly misinterpreted; blantantly cherry picked to support his interpretations; or totally overlook it when it contradicts his interpretations. For exmple, there was already and even more now, enough geochronological and stratigraphic data in the peer-reviewed literature to soundly refute Hancock's and Carlson's claims at the times of his book publications that there was a single Missoula Flood and were extensive continent-wide megafloods at the Younger Dryas boundary. All of this evidence is summarily ignored without any detailed analyses provided and because in their opinion it is without explanation claimed to be "contrived." Summaries of this evidence can be found on the revenant Wikipedia pages associated with the Missoula floods and Channeled Scabland and papers like "The Missoula and Bonneville floods—A review of ice-age megafloods". In addition, instead of presenting their interpretations to open analysis by researchers at venues like The Role of Outburst Floods in Earth and Planetary Evolution, GSA Penrose Conference, June 5-9, 2023 | Camp Delany, Coulee City, Washington, USA, Hancock and Carlson only present them at Joe Rogan and other venues where nobody is going to critically question what they say. Basically, both Hancock and Carlson are "cafeteria catatsrophists" who select evidence evidence as a person selects food at a cafeteria on the basis of whether it is tastes good or unpleasant instead of whether it is reliable or not. Paul H. (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hancock’s drug use and promotion

Hancock has used psychedelics several times and wants them available to adults without restriction. 2600:1011:B02F:B4FF:4DB1:35C3:D597:FBA (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

1. Reference number Two sourcing the Subject as "promoting pseudo-scientific theories" is invalid and cannot be accessed (Error 404).

2. Reference number three sources from a website which is not a reputable source for the subject at hand.

3. The phrase 'pseudoscientific theories' in the first line of the article should be changed to 'alternative archeological theories' as the former diminishes the legitimacy of the person and discredits their work before exploration. Logical Cranium (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Welcome to Wikipedia.
The source that is currently reference 2 is a book, Garrett G. Fagan's Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, ISBN ISBN 9780415305921. It is not "invalid". If the Google Books link doesn't work, that doesn't invalidate the actual source, since a link to an online version of a print work is just an extra convenience. As a matter of fact, the link works fine for me, so it might be a temporary problem at your end.
Source 3 is an article in Skeptic, not a website; the author is a professor of geology specialised in vulcanology. If you do not believe that this source is reliable in this article, you will need to explain why. --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Regarding item 3 above: it is false that "pseudoscientific" diminishes the legitimacy; it accurately describes it according to reliable sources.
What does before exploration mean? Are you making the extraordinary claim that the experts who call it that have not explored the subject before coming to that conclusion? You would need good evidence for that. Or are you saying that using the word at the beginning of the text is a sort of spoiler that takes the suspense out of the rest of the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon, (yes) · esWp, but (not yet) · Category:2012 phenomenon believers

Ciao! --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  • We do not seem to mention it in this article, is he? Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    2012 phenomenon mentions him in passing but it's only sourced to one of Hancock's books. The Spanish Wikipedia article had the category added in this diff [3] but there's no source there or in the current version of the article. He's clearly got/had some beliefs about 2012 going by [4].
    I had a look for reliable sources, [5] has a couple of quotes from him about 2012 but they're vague. I'm not sure it needs added to the article unless someone can find a better RS discussing his beliefs in more detail. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Biography

@Jgmcgill: See WP:PROUD. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Archeology

All point of views need to be either accepted or rejected based on logical and practical tangible evidences. There should not be bigoted anti academic lobbying to blacklist a point of view. 59.91.40.86 (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The germane website policy is WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
How odd then that the people we quoted are all qualified academics, which Hancock is not. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2023 (2)

Please remove the references he is “pseudoscience” and replace it with: “a journalist who is “investigating human prehistory” 57.135.150.49 (talk)

Not done: We follow what reliable sources say about article subjects. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Shame on you, Radish. "Pseudo" is a derogatory characterization here that involves an editorial conclusion not based on facts. All you've done has been to say "well, other people say he's a crackpot, so we'll say he's a crackpot too". You might not like his theories, but you can't honestly call him pseudo unless you've caught him fudging his data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:290:8814:E0BC:506C:E620:332E:7952 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

All you've done has been to say "well, other people say he's a crackpot, so we'll say he's a crackpot too" -- this is quite literally how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Perhaps give WP:NPOV a glance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
In Fingerprints of the God's he pushed the narrative that the Cuicuilco pyramid was over 8000 years old by referencing dated studies of the structure instead of referring to all recent archeological studies that dated it much much later. He also claimed that there were statues in Mexico showing pre-contact people with distinctive Caucasian features. Without much of any supporting data beyond his own subjective assessment linked to promoting white gods mythology. Sounds like fudging to me. As does claiming that NASA was hiding evidence of megalithic on Mars in that book. 2600:1008:B068:7474:0:4C:3D58:7101 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hit piece

I love how this site allows itself to be part of hit pieces like this. Acting like his ideas are pseudoscientific because they don't align with the money is despicable. 166.198.251.132 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Query: who makes more money--academic archaeologists or Mr. Hancock? Dumuzid (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, professional academics are probably earning a fraction of what Hancock does from his books and television documentaries.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
...money? In archaeology? 😂 – Joe (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No, it is because he claims to "Analyze" evidence, and alters it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
he says things that counter the
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023

Please remove the pseudoscience remark 68.231.62.251 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

See talk page discussion above and the archive. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. 💜  melecie  talk - 13:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's suppose that Wikipedia editors can reach agreement on an accurate definition of what qualifies someone to be labelled a pseudo-scientist (rather than its use as name calling mockery). It will have to be careful with the time issue, so as not to disquality 'proto-scientist' Galileo. Of course, that distinction might require input from real science historians (instead of the mocking of dilletantes).

Further suppose that Hancock qualifies by that definition. Then to be consistent, Wikipedia needs to go through all of its articles and apply that label just as dispassionately to *all* of the 'amateur scientists' throughout history.

That task might begin with Sophus Tromholt, for example - who is called an 'astrophysicist' in that article (he took photos of auroras) ... and is said to have established 'a scientific northern lights centre'. Now take a look at his credentials. Was *he* a real scientist? Twang (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is thinking way too hard about this. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. That frees us from having to make these sorts of judgment calls. Do the sources get things wrong? Sure. Where reliable sources get something wrong, so will Wikipedia. Simple as that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
A, We do not call HIM a pseudo-scientist. B, Even if we did many of the " of the 'amateur scientists' throughout history." are (as you point out) "proto-scientists". C, being an "amateur scientist" (which Hancock is not he is a journalist) does not mean you are a pseudo-scientist, what makes you a pseudo-scientist is claiming to use the scientific method to promote fringe theories. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Twangv And you seem to have been around enough to know there is no "Wikipedia" that can go through all relevant articles. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

Remove the word " pseudoscientific " Di angelo42 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a fitting word, so no. - Roxy the dog 08:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion: we create a bot that says "remove the word pseudoscientific" on the talk page every day. This would save Hancock's fan club the time and trouble of doing this. One more time, Hancock's theories are not accepted by mainstream academics.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
In all seriousness, maybe an FAQ or editnotice could help? – Joe (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes and no, I have never known them to stop this kind of drive-by IP. but does mean all we have to do is say "see FAQ" and close it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
See the talk page above and the archives. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Orion thing trivial

There must be a source somewhere which says that the Orion correlation "theory" is just a banal "oooh! there are three things in a row! and oooh! there are three other things in a row!" and does not deserve the status of "theory". It is so stupid for Wikipedia articles to talk at length about that crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"The unspectacular observation that the three main pyramids at Giza resemble the [belt of] Orion was worked up into a grand scheme
that pointed back to a date of 10,500 BC [...] and suggested matters of deep spiritual importance." "The original OCT argued for
a wider pyramid map of Orion that included monuments beyond Giza [...] subsequent history of the OCT [...] is a story of steady
retreat." Fagan p. 38
It never had the status of a scientific theory, it's just a name. Like string theory, which has "theory" in its name but isn't a scientific theory either. Hypnôs (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It is none of the things (if not the main thing) that set him on the path of pseudoscience. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Let me just make a somewhat forum-y submission to say the Orion correlation, as sort of implied by Professor Fagan, is entirely reasonable as an explanation for the offset design of the pyramids at Giza. It only goes off the rails with the whole "the Nile is the Milky Way, so 10,500 BCE" nonsense. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It's similar to ley lines. Find a few things that line up, and hey presto, infer whatever you like from it. It's not trivia, and is one of Hancock's best known claims.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It simply CANNOT be a coincidence that any two sacred sites you choose can be connected by a straight line. Q.E.D. Happy Monday! Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC) ETA: this was my attempt at Monday morning humor, and no hard feelings if it is unceremoniously undone. Cheers!

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950) is a British writer who promotes pseudoscientific[2][3] theories involving ancient civilizations and lost lands.[4]

In above text add after who: by some persons account

Add after lands, [4; however this is not how he views himself. Add reference after himself (London Real, interview with Graham Hancock on YouTube). 87.104.36.133 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done: When the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are united in an opinion, we can speak in Wikipedia's voice and don't need in line attribution. As to your second request, see WP:SPS. Cannolis (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This uptick in complaints about the word "pseudoscentist" amd "pseudoscience" is starting to feel like brigading. Paul H. (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Pretty sure this is continuing fallout from the recent London Real video I mentioned above, which continues to rise in views. Eventually the view count for the video will plateau and the rate of comments here will slow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The way he called out this coverage specifically seems directly related to the incoming complaints. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Drive by wp:spa IP's, it does not matter how many separate threads are launched, what matters is WP:RULE based arguments, not the number of accounts that make the point. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

Please change the first line Graham Hancock is a promoter of pseudoscientific theories”

He is a journalist and it would be the right thing to do, to state this instead. 120.20.125.233 (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

He is (or at least was) a journalist. This is covered by "writer". He also promotes pseudoscientific theories. This fact has been extensively discussed above and is supported by citations to reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
He can be both. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Saying that he is a journalist does not mean that professional archaeologists are banned from discussing or criticising his work. This is a weak argument.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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

I agree and support this action. Please remove biased, minimizing commentary/description of Graham Hancock as promoting pseudoscience or describing this individual as a pseudoscientist. 2601:643:200:1520:85F3:9C82:ABF5:8917 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Your quibble (as well as Mr. Hancock's) is not with Wikipedia, but the reliable sources which cover him. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sentence para three suggests a requirement which does not exist.

The third paragraph states: "His writings have neither undergone scholarly peer review nor been published in academic journals". This sentence is arbitrary - his work as a journalist wouldn't be expected to be peer reviewed or placed in a scientific journal, it's simply placed in the public domain for people to consume (or not) as they see fit. The inclusion of this falsely presents the requirements of his position and should be removed. JagHiroshi (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not. Well sourced in the lead, (which isn't necessary), and supported and well sourced in the body text, there is no reason to remove it. -Roxy the dog 18:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hancock's inquiries and musings into antiquity are not really within the ambit of journalism; when he wanders into other fields, it is fair game to point out the strictures that specialists in those fields typically undergo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It would be ironic for academics to suggest that Hancock's work is pseudoscience - yet also believe that academics are entitled to decide what is and isn't journalism. The sentence is superfluous and suggests a requirements has not been met, which evidently by his profession he does not need to meet. This could be construed as misleading, suggesting that the page is not meeting its requirements to provide due neutrality, hence mismanaged. That academia has contested his views is already well established in the article. JagHiroshi (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It simply notes that Hancock has not undergone the same vetting that academics in the field normally do. To take an extreme example, if he were to perform surgery and it was noted that he had no professional qualifications to do so, "he's a journalist" would strike me as equally unavailing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The sentence is superfluous as his profession does not require him to submit to peer review or scientific journals. This page has a requirement for neutrality and could confuse readers that he has not met his professional requirements (i.e. is an attempt to undermine his integrity rather than truthfully describe his position). JagHiroshi (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It does if he writes about (or in) a scientific area. And we would do our readers a disservice to not point out how his claims do not have scientific credibility. If we do not do that we might mislead our readers into thinking his work has been accepted by the academic community. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This suggests a misunderstanding. Everyone is entitled to put forward theories and viewpoints on any subject. Hancock does not claim to be an academic nor does he compete for research grants (he's privately funded), hence he is not required to undergo peer review or publish in a scientific journal. The sentence is unnecessary and suggests a misleading requirement to readers by its presence. Remember, this is not an article about academia's views on Graham Hancock - it's a Wikipedia page about the individual. If he'd suggested he was an academic and it transpired his work had not been published or peer reviews, then it would be another matter. JagHiroshi (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
"Everyone is entitled to put forward theories and viewpoints on any subject." Sure. Just like everyone can feel emboldened to offer cures for medical conditions. But doing so comes with the risk of being scrutinized by the medical profession and WP reporting about their verdict. Dito for someone who makes claims about the origin of monuments from the ancient past (which is the natural realm of archeology, which is an academic science). –Austronesier (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe the mention is relevant, since it concludes the paragraph of the lead that examines Hancock's "interpretations of archaeological evidence and historic documents". As for the reminder that "this is not an article about academia's views on Graham Hancock", an overview of criticism he's getting from professionals in a field he's been writing about for the past 30 years certainly has its place in the article. Robincantin (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely. Academia should be free to contest his work and frequently do. However, that's a very different matter form the editorial request I've put forward. A journalist is not required to submit to peer review or scientific journal in the same way an academic might be. The presence of this sentence therefore is not required. It's a simple but fair point and I'm surprised that it's seen as a point of contention. JagHiroshi (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
One of the actual joys of Wikipedia for me is that it will often challenge notions I take as axiomatic. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hancock has never been particularly well known as a journalist. He is best known for his huge-selling books that put forward the "ancient lost civilisation" hypothesis, which is clearly rejected by mainstream academics. As the lead section points out, his work as a journalist in the 1980s was considered to be OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
But Hancock calling himself a journalist who extends the method of journalistic investigation to things in the far past is an essential sophistic device of his, and not without impact, as we can witness in this very thread. But there are not many reliable sources that adopt (or better: fall for) Hancock's self-designation. So the contention that a journalist's work doesn't have to be assessed by standards other than journalistic ones is based on a very contestable premise. –Austronesier (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
A person could say "I'm a journalist and my research tells me that 2 +2 = 5" but they should not hold their breath waiting to win the Fields Medal. As has been pointed out in this thread, Hancock uses self-designation as a journalist to bypass academic scrutiny.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between science refuting the work of a non-scientist, something which they're free to do, and suggesting that anyone who talks about a subject to which science has already enquired must be subject to scientific methods of review. Clearly, this is not a standard we demand in the world, which is why this sentence in particular came to my attention. JagHiroshi (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
No one suggested that "anyone who talks about a subject to which science has already enquired must be subject to scientific methods of review".
You keep conflating the statements "Hancock does X" and "Hancock is not allowed to do X". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not undue to point out that works containing original research that are disseminated as an "alternative" to science (which is not journalism), have not gone through peer review. Hypnôs (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In addition, it is considered the ethically duty of a scientist to "Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters." in many codes of scientific ethics. Regardless of what a person, who is misleading people, even out of pure personal ignorance, about scientific matters, calls hisself or herself and publication venue, there is a ethical duty for a scientist to point it out. Paul H. (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
":Yes everyone does, and those views must be challenged by experts if experts decide to. We then must repeat those assessments. In the same way as if a journalist says "Person X is a chicken strangler" we have to put what experts think about that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

Grahm Hancock states clearly in a recent interview that Wikipedia represents him falsely by claiming he is a pseudoscientist. 69.117.106.63 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done apologies, but there are two issues here, one procedural and one substantive. On a procedural level, as the templates says, this really should be a concrete change proposal--"change X to Y." This is getting close, but I don't think is concrete enough. Secondly, I am sure Mr. Hancock thinks his work is being misrepresented. And that is indeed evidence to be taken into account. In this situation, however, the consensus is that it is outweighed by the reliable sources who disagree with him. As I said directly above, it's not so much Wikipedia that is the problem, but the sources we use. That is where you or Mr. Hancock would really have to start to create this kind of change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This IP editor and previous editors need to understand that a "semi-protected edit request" is a request to the change protection status of an article and has nothing to do with the content of an article. In addition it is incorrect, even misleading, to claims that "Wikipedia represents him falsely by claiming he is a pseudoscientist." Wikipedia is not "representing" Hancock as a "pseudoscientist" or anything else. Wikipedia is only reporting honestly what the consenous of reliable sources are stating about Hancock. If 69.117.106.63 has an issue with Hancock being called a "pseudoscientist", he needs complain to the reliable sources and convinced them to change their minds. Wikipedia is only the messenger and has no control about what other people write about Hancock. Paul H. (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit requests are actually about content changes to articles, but I agree with the rest. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
My mistake. I apologize for my confusion. Basically, an IP editor is requesting a change that he or she cannot do because an article is protected. Live, learn, and eat a little crow some days. So it goes. Paul H. (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Here is what reviewers said about The Sign and the Seal: "Jonathan Kirsch of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "It's part travelogue, part true-adventure, part mystery-thriller. But mostly it's a whacking big dose of amateur scholarship alloyed with a fervid imagination and the kind of narrative that comes in handy when telling ghost stories around a campfire." Desmond Ryan of the Philadelphia Inquirer joked, "If [Hancock] did any more speculating than what is strewn through the many pages of The Sign and the Seal, he would have to go into real estate." These are things that reliable sources said about Hancock's work, Wikipedia simply reports them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Mr Hancock in not a wp:rs, also what would you want us to say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

To remove the statement following "The SAA also stated that the series". I'm not a fan of this person however this is clearly bias and should take a more neutral stance, absolutely nothing about his recent series or what I've read about Graham Hancock has anything even closely related to "racist, white supremacist ideologies" this being in his page is misinformation and wrong.

Information that came to light has also backed up the idea that this being put here is targeted as a result of prejudice against his findings alone. If this can't or won't be changed I'd appreciated an email explaining why so I can have a better understanding of what's going on. RitoDurito (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it is, which is why we attribute it, and I am goin to say that then SAA are clearly a body that is an RS for comments about archeology What is going is we are going by what wp:rs, say about wP:fringe theories. I would be interested for you to post here the RS that have found " this being put here is targeted as a result of prejudice against his findings alone". Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that Hancock or Erich von Däniken are deliberately trying to produce racist theories. The problem is that they have inferred that non-white Europeans would have difficulty producing advanced things unless they were helped by aliens or some kind of lost civilisation. This criticism has also been levelled against von Däniken.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I am unsure, which is why we go by what RS say. They may be directly racist, casually racist or just naive and do not realize what they are implying. But this is not a judgment we as editors can make., Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Not a pseudoscientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.127.98 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As has been said before by numerous editors, including me, Wikipedia is only honestly stating what a consenous of reliable sources have concluded and written about Graham Hancock. It does not matter what either I, 64.234.127.98, or any other editor thinks about Hancock being or not being a "pseudoscientist". It only matters what reliable sources say about Hancock being a "pseudoscientist". As a result, 64.234.127.98 needs to discuss this matter with the reliable sources and convinced them to change their minds. Wikipedia is only the messenger and has no control about what other people write about Hancock. Paul H. (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

In this link described a Graham like a investigative reporter so please remove pseudo from this description as far as I concerned he is a reporter there is no pseudo theories at all.

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock 2806:109F:10:9D3B:D038:B9D6:A30E:E63F (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done: Not particularly interested in what the Spanish wiki has to say. See WP:USERGEN Cannolis (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
NO wiki is a wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This isn't new. Hancock describes himself as a journalist and his work as a narrative. This does not rule out the possibility of mainstream academics criticising his work.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023 (2)

"is a British writer" -> "is a British journalist and writer" Troopersho (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that change. sorry. - Roxy the dog 16:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It's also rather like a Tautology (language). For the last thirty years, Hancock has been best known for his books, although he was a journalist in the 1980s.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
This is redundant; journalists are writers. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Then it should be "is a British journalist and author" 149.97.165.53 (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"Writer" covers both appropriately. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A journalist can be a writer, but not all writers are journalists. The issue is not that labelling Graham as a writer might be misleading, it’s that it is an injustice to his profession. If it is not necessary, then why are all other well known journalists described as such on Wiki? They are given their professions to provide the world with common sense accuracy, whilst for Graham this seems to be viewed by Wiki as an unnecessary edit and a necessary purposeful omission. Strange that a perfectly justifiable edit should be refused when it is requested for the purpose of accuracy and respect. Is this a definite no, Wiki? Wikiqwerty1101 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a quite a long time that Hancock actually did journalism. Sure, he labels his writing and TV shows he's done over last two decades as "journalism", but applying a more than unorthodox defintion of the term. Secondary sources hardly use the label at all to characterize his work. –Austronesier (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
[7] calls him a "pseudo-journalist". Not useable here, since it is a blog, but Carl Feagans seems to be on to something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Graham...accuracy 🤣 By the way, if you two are on first-name terms, perhaps you might need to declare a conflict of interest?  Tewdar  12:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking out the whole section off...

of pseudoarcheology as it serves only one purpose wich is to manipulate readers(neutral) opinion to a certain direction.

As for example one could replace that section with a text where Graham is calling arheology to not science whatever and make couple black dots and copy paste some fitting statements to manipulate readers opinion to a differeny way. Wich would be wrong and irretating aswell, so make wikipedia great again and take that fuckin thing off. And on the all the other places in our wourld as well. 85.76.5.167 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Or we could go by what actual experts in the subject say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia was never great. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Any reference to pseudoscience added to Wiki is an effective attempt to shut down something of extremely high importance to the people. This may be one of the biggest examples available that demonstrates Wiki’s unjust and perhaps indirect malice position on misinformation. They claim that they go with ‘what the experts say’ as they are reliable sources of information? Says who, ‘the experts’? That’s not justifiable when those experts work on a well known closed protocol system that doesn’t allow worthy and valuable outside opinions, simply on the grounds that they differ. Graham has been shown to have more field study than some of ‘the experts’ involved in this silly dismissive and combative push back reaction to his pragmatic yet complex work, which he carries out through sound methodical investigative processes. His competence on the subject is higher (in many cases) and - crucially - totally unbiased. Allowing the silencing of other experts’ (investigative journalists) work through mockery is an archaic danger to the people that has been proven to be such for years. Continue to lock this page down for the sake of protecting big egos, but know that it’s not the right decision to make for the world. I get that Wiki editors may feel that their hands are tied as they are only the messenger of information from ‘reliable’ sources. But I struggle with that when wondering who decides who is ‘reliable’. Of course, it’s Wiki. Why not, rather than consider the opinions of people who don’t like Graham (which is a very obvious contaminating factor of information), you consider what Graham himself has to say about the issue? He’s presenting evidence based ideas. Is that different to the approach ‘the experts’ and ‘reliable sources’ take? Archaeologists who are bruised by Graham’s findings, we get it… it stings. Maybe try looking at it as opportunity to further explore the unknown without allowing pride to get in the way. Or at least, if any of Graham’s evidence-based ideas are refutable (in the sense of being wrong rather than false), then close the book on them with evidence to the contrary that substantiates your position as the more accurate one. Don’t prematurely close the book on them and stamp the front cover with unjustifiable and malicious mockery. Simply, that’s clever minds acting out nonsense. To all Archaeologists, huge respect for exploring our past to help shape our future. To anyone who in any way acts to stall this process for any individual-based reasons, try reevaluating the benefits of doing so and consider the collective outcomes. Wikiqwerty1101 (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but until 'Graham' gets his speculations published in a respected peer-reviewed journal (which is about as likely as his ancient Ice Age advanced civilization), he's going to be called a pseudoscientist in this article. So I'd find something better to do with my time if I were you.  Tewdar  12:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Well one way to be an expert is to have a qualification in the subject you are commenting on. Another way is to get published in reputable subject-specific journals. Another way is to be a member of a prestigious professional body. One way to not do it is to in fact deny you are an expert and instead just claim to be a journalist asking questions. Slatersteven (talk)
I did not completely read that wall-of-rant, it seems to be pretty uninteresting.
But your attempt to reasoning us into replacing the point of view of reliable sources and experts by yours is totally pointless. Wikipedia cannot do that, it would violate the rules. See WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk)
Above, you argued that Hancock is a journalist, here you talk about his "field work" – which is it to be? "Journalist" is not a profession that implies any kind of expertise in scientific or scholarly areas, and if he'd been doing any kind of investigative journalism he wouldn't have done his own "field work" but would have left that to the experts; archeological field work is carried out by actual experts (that is, archeologists), not by enthusiastic amateurs, for instance journalists with no training or credentials in the field. So, in fact, neither one nor the other. --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The main problem that archaeologists, geologists, and other reliable sources have with Graham Hancock in the sentence "He’s presenting evidence based ideas." is that the "evidence" that is presented is either horribly misinterpreted; blantantly cherry picked to support his interpretations; or totally overlook it when it contradicts his interpretations. For exmple, there was already and even more now, enough geochronological and stratigraphic data in the peer-reviewed literature to soundly refute Hancock's and Carlson's claims at the times of his book publications that there was a single Missoula Flood and were extensive continent-wide megafloods at the Younger Dryas boundary. All of this evidence is summarily ignored without any detailed analyses provided and because in their opinion it is without explanation claimed to be "contrived." Summaries of this evidence can be found on the revenant Wikipedia pages associated with the Missoula floods and Channeled Scabland and papers like "The Missoula and Bonneville floods—A review of ice-age megafloods". In addition, instead of presenting their interpretations to open analysis by researchers at venues like The Role of Outburst Floods in Earth and Planetary Evolution, GSA Penrose Conference, June 5-9, 2023 | Camp Delany, Coulee City, Washington, USA, Hancock and Carlson only present them at Joe Rogan and other venues where nobody is going to critically question what they say. Basically, both Hancock and Carlson are "cafeteria catatsrophists" who select evidence evidence as a person selects food at a cafeteria on the basis of whether it is tastes good or unpleasant instead of whether it is reliable or not. Paul H. (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hancock’s drug use and promotion

Hancock has used psychedelics several times and wants them available to adults without restriction. 2600:1011:B02F:B4FF:4DB1:35C3:D597:FBA (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

1. Reference number Two sourcing the Subject as "promoting pseudo-scientific theories" is invalid and cannot be accessed (Error 404).

2. Reference number three sources from a website which is not a reputable source for the subject at hand.

3. The phrase 'pseudoscientific theories' in the first line of the article should be changed to 'alternative archeological theories' as the former diminishes the legitimacy of the person and discredits their work before exploration. Logical Cranium (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Welcome to Wikipedia.
The source that is currently reference 2 is a book, Garrett G. Fagan's Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, ISBN ISBN 9780415305921. It is not "invalid". If the Google Books link doesn't work, that doesn't invalidate the actual source, since a link to an online version of a print work is just an extra convenience. As a matter of fact, the link works fine for me, so it might be a temporary problem at your end.
Source 3 is an article in Skeptic, not a website; the author is a professor of geology specialised in vulcanology. If you do not believe that this source is reliable in this article, you will need to explain why. --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Regarding item 3 above: it is false that "pseudoscientific" diminishes the legitimacy; it accurately describes it according to reliable sources.
What does before exploration mean? Are you making the extraordinary claim that the experts who call it that have not explored the subject before coming to that conclusion? You would need good evidence for that. Or are you saying that using the word at the beginning of the text is a sort of spoiler that takes the suspense out of the rest of the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon, (yes) · esWp, but (not yet) · Category:2012 phenomenon believers

Ciao! --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  • We do not seem to mention it in this article, is he? Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    2012 phenomenon mentions him in passing but it's only sourced to one of Hancock's books. The Spanish Wikipedia article had the category added in this diff [8] but there's no source there or in the current version of the article. He's clearly got/had some beliefs about 2012 going by [9].
    I had a look for reliable sources, [10] has a couple of quotes from him about 2012 but they're vague. I'm not sure it needs added to the article unless someone can find a better RS discussing his beliefs in more detail. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Biography

@Jgmcgill: See WP:PROUD. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC) 

"wisdom ' of the "experts' 2601:743:380:1560:903:D330:D8B5:BCDE (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
If I say that the sun revolves around the Earth, I would also be countering the "wisdom" of the "experts," and I would be equally wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect referencing

In the Pseudoarchaeology section, Fagans work is quoted.

When apparently factual claims in their works are investigated it turns out that "quotes are presented out of context, critical countervailing data is withheld, the state of understanding is misrepresented, or critical archaeological information about context is ignored".

The source cited for this is: Fagan, Garrett G. (2006). Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. Psychology Press. ISBN 9780415305921.

Fagan does not say these words in his review. Raakkk (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The quote is cited to page 36 of the book, where it can indeed be found. Hypnôs (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies. Got a bad image copy. Raakkk (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023

pseudoscientific] should be removed. 2600:100F:B1B4:9ACE:0:38:5434:3A01 (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Why? The sources states it. AnnaMankad (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_Hancock/Archive_4"