Talk:Graham Hancock

Clarification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of pseudoarcheology as per Wikipedia: SomeCatOnTheInternet (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Graham Hancock does not properly engage in the scientific method. Instead of looking at evidence first, before putting up a theory, he has a theory and looks for evidence, even though much of what he claims has been disproven exstensively (i.e: the "Bimini-Road", the Sirius-Malta-temple stuff, the entire Antarctica stuff). Instead he looks at old maps (Piri-Reis, Orontius-Phineas), which can't be taken as evidence, as they're full of mistakes (also the Orontius map doesn't even call "Antarctica" Antarctica and instead calls it "Terra Australis", what could that be?), goes to sites that aren't even archeological (Bimini-Road), yet claims they are and says sites are older than established (Gunung Padang, Snake Hill Mound, the Sphinx, etc.). All that is pseudoarcheology. I hope I made clear why he is a pseudoarcheologist.

Also, I've written pretty much the same comment 20 days ago, 'cause someone wanted the exact same. It wasn't true then that Hancock isn't a pseudoarcheologist, nor is it now. SomeCatOnTheInternet (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, when did someone argue that he isn't a journalist? That's pretty much all he is, besides being pretty much a fiction author ("Fingerprints of the gods") and someone who holds a degree in sociology. SomeCatOnTheInternet (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950)[1] is a British writer and investigative journalist who explores theories about ancient civilizations and stories of lost lands. 2605:8D80:564:3EC4:459:4D21:5D46:D424 (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Ok, and? Please describe your changes using a "change x to y" format. Thanks. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm: I assume that 2605:8D80:* is proposing this as a new lead sentence. But I don't think it's consistent with how reliable sources describe Hancock. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hancock describes himself on his website as a journalist, but the key thing that he doesn't do is to submit his work for review in academic journals. If he did, his theories would not be accepted, so he discusses them on The Joe Rogan Experience instead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think their lead sentence is "correct", like as you said. The current lead Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950) is a British writer who promotes pseudoscientific theories about ancient civilizations and hypothetical lost lands. seems fine. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Earlier today I wrote a suggestion that a vocabulary error in the article should be corrected. I referred to the use of the word “theories” in a context where the rules of English usage require "conjectures" (or possibly “hypotheses”). Predictably, the suggestion got deleted, with one of those spurious excuses that self-styled Wikipedians like to wheel out in pursuance of their status-anxieties. Wikipedia vandalism does have the merit of taking pressure off bus stops, so perhaps I should look on the bright side. But wouldn't it be more constructive to look up the word “theory” in a dictionary? 92.9.163.67 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something.[2] What is the vocabulary error? Hypnôs (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not quite right. You have just described a hypothesis. If a hypothesis withstands efforts to disprove it, and is not in competition with a more widely supported hypothesis, then it gets upgraded to a theory. So, theories are a subset of hypotheses.

But, as the article points out, most archaeologists assert that the emergence of civilizations can be satisfactory explained without recourse to Mr Hancocks ideas. Hence Mr Hancock's ideas are, at best, just one of the various competing hypotheses that have been offered to explain the archaeological evidence.

The distinction between theory and hypothesis is unambiguous, but I do have to admit the the distinction between hypothesis and “conjecture” is harder to describe. I favour “conjecture” over “hypothesis” for Mr Hancock's ideas because hypotheses are generally formulated in response to observed phenomena, whereas conjecture is concerned with what one might observe or measure if one attempted to do so — and Mr Hancock seems to be exhorting archaeologists to dig in places where they don't currently have many observations (sahara desert, sea floor…).

The phrase “pseudoscientific theories” is internally self-contradictory because if something is pseudoscientific, it cannot be a theory. 92.9.163.67 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It's verbatim the definition of theory from the Collins dictionary. I even linked it. Hypnôs (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You're describing a very particular understanding of the words "hypothesis" and "theory" which, while quite widespread (but not universal) in science, is not the common definition of either.[3] Wikipedia is written in plain English for a general readership. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself has articles on the words “theory” and “hypothesis”, so there are really no good excuses for other articles using “theory” in sensationalist tabloid newspaper style. English is my first language, but my thoughts are with readers for whom English is a second language.

Moreover, the subject of the article (Graham Hancock) is frequently accused of being pseudoscientific, and those accusations duly get covered in the article, so it's all the more unhelpful to be the using the word “theory” in a sense that totally inverts the way that his critics use it. 92.9.163.67 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be that speculation nicely covers what he does, he speculates, often with out real evidence. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If English is your first language then you'll doubtless agree that if you approached someone on the street and said, "my theory is that you don't need a gym if you have stairs", they're unlikely to respond "ACTUALLY UNTIL YOU MAKE A SYSTEMATIC EFFORT TO DISPROVE IT THAT'S JUST A HYPOTHESIS".

"Speculations" is accurate enough but it doesn't really fit in the sentence we're talking about (... is a British writer who promotes pseudoscientific speculations about ancient civilizations and hypothetical lost lands). – Joe (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that “speculation” isn't quite ideal for the sentence. I guess it was edited by someone else who recognizes the absurdity of “pseudoscientific theories”, and was looking for a way to avoid the misleading word.

The article describes how archaeologists are exasperated by Mr Hancock's tendency to proceed backwards from conclusions to evidence. But it does not describe casual street conversations about gyms, so you gym example doesn't help. In an article about someone who is widely criticised for presenting conjecture in a way that makes it look superficially like established theory, inverting the meaning of the word “theory” can only cause confusion. Since Wikipedia itself has an article that describes the existence of two diametrically opposite meanings of the word “theory”, it's deeply weird to pick the meaning that's opposite to the one used by Hancock's critics when those critics' criticisms are what makes up the bulk of the article.

The sensible thing is just to use unambiguous wording. 92.9.163.67 (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, using another Wikipedia article as a source on Wikipedia isn't a great argument to make in this case. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Tone

The article and particularly first paragraph come across as somewhat passive-aggressive, particularly in the way it critiques Graham Hancock's ideas and presents his work. While it does describe his theories, the tone implies a judgment of their validity in a way that could be seen as dismissive or condescending.

Here are a few examples of passive-aggressive tone in the passage:

1. "Superficially resemble investigative journalism" – The word "superficially" suggests a negative judgment, implying that Hancock's work only appears like investigative journalism but doesn't actually meet the standards.
2. "Lack accuracy, consistency and impartiality" – This could be seen as an indirect way of saying his work is flawed, rather than just stating it outright. The phrase sounds somewhat like a critique meant to undermine credibility without directly confronting the person.
3. "Portrays himself as a culture hero" – The term "culture hero" can come across as sarcastic or mocking, depending on context, as if implying that Hancock is overinflating his significance.
4. "He has not submitted his writings for scholarly peer review" – While this is a factual statement, it could be framed as a way of implying that Hancock's ideas are not valid or credible because they haven't gone through rigorous academic scrutiny.

In summary, while the passage is largely factual, the language used—especially words like "superficially," "lack," and "culture hero"—carry implicit critiques that feel unscholarly and tone heavy. 174.96.158.84 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The wording is based on the sources used in the article, and it largely reflects the opinions spelled out here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)