From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
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
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
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

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook