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.

claims of racism with no evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

Disingenuous

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

Yes, indeed. I watched the interview and was surprised by the claim. If something is contested, a discussion can be opened. The majority of objections went towards the claims of using "racist" sources and not being able to edit that out of Wikipeida (as far as I can remember). I can even see this reddit post [2]. I've personally never been involved in this article. I've just read what the article says, and I can attest it just reports what SAA published. Bilseric (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I've warned Jack.B.2007 about this before, see User talk:Jack.B.2007#Dec 22 on down. User:Slatersteven warned him for using talk pages as a forum, then I did also twice. He doesn't seem to care and has a huge gripe about Wikipedia. User:Hipal also had a problem with him. And see [3] and the rest of the discussion with User:Hob Gadling. ANI? Doug Weller talk 10:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accusations of "White Supremacy" etc.

The clause:

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

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

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

So?

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

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

A logical fallacy is a fallacy? Please elaborate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you be satisfied, if we add this rebuttal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This source sums it up well:

Some critics have therefore already accused Hancock of – at least, latent – racism. Whether one can accuse him of an intentional racist attitude, I dare to doubt, ...[5] Hypnôs (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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