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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 14 days
![]() |
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:
|
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. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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)
Hes a journalist not a scientist or archeologist 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 ( talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 14 days
![]() |
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:
|
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. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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)
Hes a journalist not a scientist or archeologist 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 ( talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
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)