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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days

view ·  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 is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 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 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.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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

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

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

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

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

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