![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I loved wikipedia for its open-source open edit platform. if the page cannot be edited you should have included mr. hancocks view on his wikki pedia page not allowing editing. this approach should be taken for every page about an individual that cannot be edited by that individual.
You will not receive any more money from me. I still love you but not as much. 2603:900A:1602:FD00:60F8:810E:E495:8A3C ( talk) 20:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This cite was removed from lead, I thought it was a decent citation from the Daily Science Journal, so forgive me, but it seems to far more helpful to the reader than the first two citations left there to demonstrate the term pseudoscientific. Should it not be reinstated? Govvy ( talk) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Graham Hancock. Skyerise ( talk) 14:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
What precise BLP violations are there? I don't see them outlined here nor do I see them explained on the noticeboard thread. Ordering sections and arguments over heading titles as such do not strike me as being BLP violations. What am I missing? jps ( talk) 17:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Instead of "best known for", could we do "non-fiction writer who promotes pseudoscientific theories involving ancient civilizations and lost lands"? I, and many other editors, generally prefer not to use "best known for" constructions. I know the use of 'pseudoscientific' in the first sentence is itself under review, but assuming that it's going to stay, how does everyone feel about this new wording? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
New Statesman published an article by him 9 years ago and still calls him a journalist. I don't think he has necessarily retired from that title since then. [2]. jps ( talk) 17:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I question the inclusion of this line from the Telegraph review of AA. What exactly is meant by this? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
"With Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse, Graham Hancock has declared war on archaeologists". The Conversation (website). Hypnôs ( talk) 18:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove ‘pseudoscience’ references on basis of no evidence or citations. Recommend using ‘reporter/journalist’. Type of language is primarily used in a negative manner or character damaging and not all that descriptive. Tomrochesterpeary ( talk) 21:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree on your argument. This is the same as guilty until proven innocent. Regardless of his claims which mainstream does not all side with that is irrelevant the choice of language is damaging and conjure up a negative bias. In that case change the Jesus wiki to fictional character. Tomrochesterpeary ( talk) 11:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a conscious effort to damage someone’s reputation. As much as there are skeptics saying his theories are not true those same skeptics cannot prove their theories either. This is a request to remove this choice of language. Change to (who’s theories are debated and not yet accepted by mainstream science) this would be a more acceptable use of language. Tomrochesterpeary ( talk) 11:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Citations can be biased, surely we agree on that. Michael Shermer professional skeptic who published on scientific American was left unable to argue after the JRE podcast and has retracted some of what he said but a 2017 article still remains in place. Use Pseudo is not evidence it’s just an opinion. Wiki should publish facts, if you’re only looking at negative press then you’ll only see that Tomrochesterpeary ( talk) 15:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I see there has been a lot of discussion here and that it's obviously extremely gridlocked. So, I'm just passing my opinion: This article is an utter disgrace towards Wikipedia itself.
You guys are presenting an author who managed to sell millions of books on ancient history, who, at least since the beginning of the 2000s, has based every single one of his major theories on the work of "real" academics or simply retold their theories in a perfectly scientific manner (mind: he's more of a compiler than a ("crank" 🤦♂️) theorist), and who has a level of sophistication both in his style of writing as well as in his style of speech none of you guys here could ever measure up to. Yet you feel the need to belittle this man who is obviously so much more intelligent than the whole bunch of you. Hence, the best you manage to come up with is to present him as a total loon. If anything, this tells a lot about the authors of this article (and all of its defenders) but hardly anything relevant about Mr Hancock.
I, myself, have studied History at a reputable Western university for 5 years (have you?), and yet, in the last 4 1/2 years, I learned so incredibly much more about what actually could have happened in prehistory by turning to "out of the box" writers like Mr Hancock. Mainstream theories simply don't do the job if all evidence is considered (which they always avoid to do). At university, I witnessed the reasons for our highly flawed understanding of human cultural evolution: scholarly arrogance, vain and an incredible amount of mental dullness. If you take historians for gods, you've obviously never met one in person. And yet, you base all your arguments on their desperate attempts of defending their own, often fully absurd theories. I do not believe that a single one of the fierce commentators here has read just a single book by Mr Hancock in full.
I know this comment won't change your minds. But, driven by your need for belittling, I felt the need to belittle you. I can do that in good conscious because I used to be in your position (frankly, never quite on such a low level), and I later learned that knowing nothing can cause vanity in humans. In the future, I'm also going to learn not to be bothered any more by small minds like you. Mr Hancock, btw, is an excellent role model for that. 79.153.51.191 ( talk) 14:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
historians for gods.
I did not understand the proper parameters for content in that context. 2603:6081:7840:18C:99F8:F831:151:8752 ( talk) 05:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
A significant number of the sources about Hancock describe him as a "conspiracy theorist" or say he peddles "conspiracy theories" (e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6]), because apart from being factually incorrect his views are founded on the idea that academics cover up evidence and try to silence the truth. This isn't mentioned in the anywhere in the article currently, but it probably should be. Maybe we need a section on Hancock's general relationship with the scholarly mainstream? – Joe ( talk) 15:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it. I do see an interesting comment on his self-editing which might be useful. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic conversation (see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)
|
---|
|
"The argument is essentially this: The authorities who study human prehistory are ignoring—or covering up—the true foundations of the world"
"Hancock, scientists say, doesn’t understand how eagerly they’d leap at this evidence if it really existed ... As archaeologist Carl Feagans writes in a review of Ancient Apocalypse, “Every single archaeologist I know would be elated to discover any previously unknown civilization of the Ice Age".
Off-topic conversation (see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)
|
---|
|
This is directly related to above closed thread:
Flint Dibble's piece in The Conversation is given some space in the section about Ancient Apocalypse, although his critique also reviews much of Hancock's earlier work. This includes a statement about "reinforc[ing] white supremacist ideas", which Dibble actually applies to Ignatius Donelly. It is only in the next paragraph that Dibble (correctly) draws a direct line to Fingerprints of the Gods, where the "white gods" topos is expounded. Not familiar yet with all facets of Ancient Apocalypse, I'm asking: does Hancock still propagate these views anywhere in the 2022 series? According to Jason Colavito's review of American Atlantis in Skeptic [7], Hancock made a "volte-face" in this respect. So I wonder if the statement by Dibble about "reinforc[ing] white supremacist ideas" is in the right place in that section. Austronesier ( talk) 18:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page forces the opinion that Graham Hancock promotes "pseudoscientific" theories. its even the first thing that shows up on google when you search his name. There is no argument or evidence stating what is so wrong with the evidence that he has presented. The narrarive that the possibilities he talks about shouldnt be considered is distructive to the inelectual progression of out society. 50.83.224.149 ( talk) 06:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
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.
There is ample evidence of white supremacist statements and links. His latest documentary features some of his white supremacist chums. Why is he getting the kid glove treatment here? 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:1C31:F2CC:D14C:186 ( talk) 14:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that's some gatekeeping right there. Govvy, are you going to self-ban from this page or does this need reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:725A:838D:88E9:189F ( talk) 17:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
About halfway through Joe Rogan Expierience no. 1897, Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock promote the use of rediscovered “lost” ancient technology. This includes (A) “plasmoid” energy generators without moving parts and based “sacred numbers” and “vibrations”; (B) Mazda cars with green, efficient engines based on lost ancient technologies; and (C) secret Maldives laboratories filing 100s of lost ancient technology, open source patents. These are really weird, pseudoscientific ideas that Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson are openly espousing.
Graham Hancock also insinuated that the prehistoric use of lost technology is one of the explanations that archaeologists overlook the evidence for his lost advance civilization.
“The other thing is is when we talk about these ancient technologies if we're only looking for a mere reflection of ourselves. We could overlook it completely.”
and
“I always go back to the ancient Egyptian Traditions that speak of priests chanting as these huge blocks were lifted into the air were they using some kind of sound uh effect some kind of some kind of use of sound that was able to manipulate matter. We know that sound can manipulate matter as a matter of fact but they're lifting these blocks."
For the actual discussion, go to Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock on Lost Technology and the Great Pyramids on Youtube.
for some fan reactions, go to An Ancient Apocalypse? Graham Hancock and Netflix on Youtube. Paul H. ( talk) 19:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I just listened to his Ted X Talk he is certainly not promoting the recreational use of Ayahuasca. Clearly it’s quite the opposite. 68.229.68.5 ( talk) 02:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
In the section on Ancient Apocalypse (2022), I had made this addition that another user removed after deeming it unnecessary:
In my opinion, this detail is useful from an encyclopedic point of view. One wants to know what academics think, but also what other journalists than Hancock think, since the man builds his "fame" on his opposition to the "archaeological elite".
In a nutshell, I think it is important to give some examples of journalists who think differently from Hancock, just to help contextualize his argument.
I don't want to get into an editing war, so I'm asking here for the opinion (ideally argued) of some other Wikipedians so that we can determine together if the addition is totally useless.
A more synthetic reformulation of the addition I propose could possibly serve as a compromise. Since English is not my first language, perhaps someone else will be more apt to express the essence of the contribution in a few words and with more natural wording. Renardeau.arctique ( talk) 16:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Graham Hancock is not a pseudoscientist , he is a journalist and nothing more. 2A01:799:15A2:B500:F89D:55C2:6544:7C6E ( talk) 11:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A01:799:15A2:B500:E160:C940:326A:211 ( talk) 13:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Graham Hancock is not a pseudoscientist , he is a journalist and nothing more.
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page presents a biased and nonfactual summary of Graham Hancock. Labels like "psudoscience" carry a clear bias and should not be considered factual. Please consider editing the language, and at the very least, presenting a contrary point of view.
This page clearly does not represent a comprehensive or favorable view of Graham Hancock's work. Why is Wikipedia taking a stance on trying to decide who is using "science" or "pseudoscience"? Mapleleiff ( talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Wiki should not take a favorable stance on any one subject, person, or topic. It is information. It there should there be neutral on the matter. Claiming his ideas or anyone’s ideas are pseudoscience (which by your own definition on here they aren’t) takes a stand on what his ideas are. He has never made a claim to be a scientist or an archeologist. He presents ideas. These ideas shouldn’t be persecuted simply because they do not fall inline with the main stream view of the past. He’s not saying things are true but asking relevant and interesting questions. Many of the ideas presented here and opinions of Hancock are just that opinions of the man and this shouldn’t be a platform used to slander and harm an individual simply because you don’t agree with him. Dewayde ( talk) 18:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The sources used on this sentence within the wiki do not use the term "pseudoscience" and it is a jump to go to this term from the terms pseudohistory and pseudoarcheology to pseudoscience. Pseudoscience implies that archeology is a science. Archeology often incorporates scientific conclusions from geology, etc and uses testing that is also used in the sciences. It is clearly an academic discipline such as history. However, it is incorrect to claim it is a science or call its conclusions "scientific theories". Eric8911 ( talk) 16:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Pseudoarchaeology, like any pseudoscience, is always aimed at the nonexpert and the non-professional interested in the discipline concerned.– Joe ( talk) 06:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The word “promotes” is used in some places and speculation is more correctly used later in the article. I’d recommend sticking to the facts and making a claim that he speculates is strictly correct. He in fact does not promote pseudoscience and makes clarifying statements and caveats to his claims that he is not an archeologist but a journalist. Wiki shouldn’t be a platform for cyber bullying an individual but a place of true and accurate information. It calls into question the validity of wiki when opinion and obvious attempts to harm an individual are made and permitted to be housed on such a platform. Dewayde ( talk) 19:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
He in fact does not promote pseudoscienceSo, your opinion is that the things he promotes are not pseudoscience. Reliable sources disagree with you. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Wiki shouldn’t be a platform for cyber bullyinglol. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding whether we should mention his being "permanently stoned" (Hancock's words) in "Career" section ( [10] [11] [12] [13]) - perhaps it might make more sense if we include a longer quote. He actually says "for 24 years I was pretty much permanently stoned ... and I felt that it helped me with my work as a writer, and perhaps at some point it did". Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The article on Graham Hancock STARTS (!) with the following:
"Graham Bruce Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. He is known for his pseudoscientific theories[1] (...)."
I want to dispute the neutrality and also the objectivity of the claim that Graham Hancock is known for his "pseudoscientific" theories. I understand that this is meant to be taken from an arguably reliable source (Brian Regal´s "Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia"). However, applying Wikipedia´s NPOV standard this claim should say that Graham Hancock´s theories are criticized/viewed as pseudoscientific and that he himself and others dispute that claim. One could add that he´s viewed like that by "many" or by "the majority of archaeologists" or some accurate addition to that effect.
The problem, for me, is that it is just claimed that he is known for his pseudoscientific theories, as if that was just an objective truth. But I believe one could make the case that this claim is not objective at all - and there are no reasons given in the article as to why precisely his theories just are pseudoscientific. I am not here to make this case (yet) but just to initiate a constructive debate around this issue. I strongly believe that this claim is not neutral but may be influenced by a specific view, even though this view is arguably held by the majority of archaeologists. For this fact alone cannot indisputably refute the content of Hancock´s arguments. Therefore I believe the neutrality and objectivity of the article could be restored by either an addition of reasons why Hancock´s theories just are pseudoscientific or by the following correction: The sentence "He is known for his pseudoscientific theories" could be replaced by the sentence "His theories are viewed as ´pseudoscientific´ by the majority of archaeologists".
If this suggestion is found to be unreasonable, not helpful, biased, problematic, or anything else that would undermine its aspiration, I would be very happy to be told the exact reasons for that, if possible.
Thank you!
Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani on the Keys ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure If I'm doing this correctly, as I've not been an active member of wikipedia since the early '00s, but I'd like to echo this sentiment and suggest that, after having read two of his books, I would more consider Hancock to be a *theorist* and not a *pseudoscientist*. Some theories he puts forth are such that they cannot be proven in our lifetimes, but perhaps they could in the future. He doesn't tout them as fact: just as theory. Always uses words like "perhaps" or "in my opinion". And even some of his theories already do have some proof that has come about recently: like the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis - there has been a massive impact crater discovered in Greenland that could definitely count as evidence, but it's still early days and we haven't dated the crater yet. And when I compare Hancock's writings to those of other, universally-agreed pseudoscientists, to me there is a clear difference. Like when a "doctor" says "use these patches and it will cure cancer" and then posts fake findings or skews the data in a way to make it look like they work, when zero clinical trials have been done even though there is nothing preventing him from doing that. At the very least I think it would be wise to say that he is a theorist, but some of his theories are un-provable and conjecture at best, fantasy/conspiracy at worst. Something like that. Because I was turned off by Hancock for years because of his reputation. But after finally reading by myself and going through the paces of checking to see if anything he says can be proven or disproven, I've found that he does indeed have some great sources off of which he bases his theories. And as I said - they are theories and he doesn't tout them as fact - so I think he definitely needs to be distinguished from actual pseudoscientists who seek to hoodwink the public for personal gain. Again, sorry if I'm doing this wrong - just let me know and I'll put this text somewhere else. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketheburns ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the term 'pseudoscientific' used in here! I mean isn't archeology itself is built upon a lot of speculation and conjecture! Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral and objective information platform. Not some biased and sensored information platform where anyone can put an objectionable title on someone. Ashfiqur112 ( talk) 07:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. One thing that crossed my mind when I read the top sentence about Hancock was that this is written by someone who tries to discredit him in a subtle, sneaky way while claiming to be objective. The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of these people, slamming someone for pseudoscience and then they completely use their own subjective opinions when writing what’s supposed to be an objective description of said person. The worst part is how they try to conceal and deny it. Or they claim that the discussion has already been made and is concluded. By whom exactly? Likeminded gentlemen who happen to have been registered users of Wiki for a while? Tdawgh ( talk) 00:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Look at Kuhn, consider the Sociology of Knowledge as it applies to the Guild like behavior of academics possessing their topics.
It is only in the last 150 years that the Germ Theory of Disease supplanted the Miasma. We're the physicians who rejected the Germ Theory pseudoscientists? How about the folks who proffered the new concepts. For quite a while, they were on the outside.
The historians who favored the Confederacy in the Lost Cause literature, were they pseudohistorians?
Academic science is pretty much a closed shop. One gets initiated and quickly learns that either incrementing the accepted paradigm or digging into its components to validate that paradigm are essential for membership and advancement. Heretics are treated very badly.
Outsiders are simply not welcome. This is a problem because academia does not have an equivalent counter narrative. It responds to outsiders first in an ad hominem manner and then searches for a loose thread that can unravel the whole suit. This comes down to an argument from authority.
Generally, the lay people who find these topics of interest and literate and thoughtful. They are not much in danger of being seduced into a belief system that does not meet their own criteria. Further, they don't need to be rescued because if they believe Hancock lock, stock and barrel no tangible harm results.
An open minded approach that involved educating in a constructive way rather that indignant refutation would be a step in the right direction. 2603:6081:7840:18C:99F8:F831:151:8752 ( talk) 01:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All references citing Hancock's work as speculative are now nearly 20 years old. The science has changed, why hasn't this page? Jippoes ( talk) 03:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Here. [14] Starts with "This series publicly disparages archaeologists and devalues the archaeological profession on the basis of false claims and disinformation. I write to encourage you to correctly classify the genre of the show, to provide disclaimers about the unfounded suppositions in the show, and ideally to balance the deleterious content in the show with scientifically accurate information about our human past." It notes that "the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists". There's also "Netflix and ITN Productions are actively assaulting our expert knowledge, fostering distrust of our scientific community, diminishing the credibility of our members in the public eye, and undermining our extensive and ongoing efforts at outreach and public education." Well worth reading and I hope we can use it as a source. Meanwhile I'll add it as an EL. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The Netflix show is very popular and this article lacks any of the production information that is normally included in TV shows. The article could also refute any pseudoscience at length, which this article cannot. Victor Grigas ( talk) 19:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Who are you people who call yourselves moderators (i.e. Doug Weller)? Why are you all so closed minded and refuse to be open to alternative ideas on subjects that are not fully understood? You just all stick complacently to your "mainstream" ideas and refuse to listen to anything different. Very shameful and pseudoscientic mindset if you ask me. Oatmeal89 ( talk) 22:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Close this rant. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Why? 70.53.24.119 ( talk) 22:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we please come up with a consensus to stick to the opening lead sentence of the article, it's constantly shifting and loosing focus. He is not primarily a journalist, whoever changed it too that is doing the article wrong. The last thing he did was the Netflix show, that in essence is a TV presenter! His focus from author and writer shifted to secondary? Jeez. The language skills here are falling back to the stone-age! Govvy ( talk) 11:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Concerning language skills: “loosing focus” - find one flaw. Also, it seems sneaky and manipulative not to mention that he’s also a journalist. Obviously an attempt to make him seem less credible, as a writer can more easily be discarded as a “fiction-writer” as opposed to a truth-seeking journalist. Be better. Tdawgh ( talk) 23:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
corrupt and dogmaticis that they reject his ideas. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi there Wikipedia I’m here taking time to sincerely ask you for the most logical request someone might have. Please authorize Graham Hancock to be the sole moderator of his page. This is the least you can do. 2600:1700:EEC4:8080:BD9D:E7B9:ECAE:461C ( talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
If you have ideas about stuff, do some science, like this guy. Roxy the dog 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It would be in the best interest of Wikipedia and users of Wikipedia to have an unbiased moderator for this page. 184.71.72.62 ( talk) 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The describing of Mr Hancock as a "pseudoscientist" & so on, is purposely done to discredit his ideas, which, if so poorly constructed, could be discredited by using some sort of scientific analysis of his claims, instead they are summarily dismissed as "pseudoscience".
This is simply not good enough & unacceptable in our modern age, when such slander of respected commentators is obviously partisan & used to hide the fact that his opponents do not substantively address his claims,queries &/or propositions. The material evidence he points-out,is also left uninvestigated, that's not a very scientific response to his claims either.
I find this slanderous approach to Mr Hancock & his extensive work/writing, to be risible as well as unnecessarily vitriolic. Please amend this TERRIBLE review of Mr Hancock & his work asap. 94.193.62.179 ( talk) 13:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
How is pseudoscientific considered to be NPOV? The Wikipedia page for pseudoscience states “Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method”. Can we ascertain that such an author meets this definition with his claims? binary.dat ( talk) 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Would a philosopher be considered a pseudoscientist then by that definition? It would seem that be the case which doesn’t make very little sense in logical terms. Philosophy supersedes science and is the formation of it. It seems very hard to make a claim that philosophical dialogue can be pseudoscientific. binary.dat ( talk) 19:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Would a philosopher be considered a pseudoscientist then by that definition?Doesn't matter. The only question relevant for Wikipedia is: do reliable sources call that philosopher a pseudoscientist? For Hancock, that is the case. This is the Talk page for Hancock, so, everything else does not belong here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
See
[17] Ancient Apocalypse host Graham Hancock gave a lengthy, self-pitying interview to London Real in which he celebrated his own bravery while offering a series of oxymoronic and illogical arguments in a sustained attacked on Wikipedia, archaeology in general, and one archaeologist in particular.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
19:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change all of your references to Pseudoscience or pseudoarcheology to science and archeology…. There are over 100 scientists who agree with him. 2600:1016:B100:FC01:D0E6:D138:8716:711 ( talk) 00:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
How about you remove anything calling him a psudoscientist and pseudoarcheologist as he says he is not an archeologist or scientist Ogular ( talk) 18:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I loved wikipedia for its open-source open edit platform. if the page cannot be edited you should have included mr. hancocks view on his wikki pedia page not allowing editing. this approach should be taken for every page about an individual that cannot be edited by that individual.
You will not receive any more money from me. I still love you but not as much. 2603:900A:1602:FD00:60F8:810E:E495:8A3C ( talk) 20:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This cite was removed from lead, I thought it was a decent citation from the Daily Science Journal, so forgive me, but it seems to far more helpful to the reader than the first two citations left there to demonstrate the term pseudoscientific. Should it not be reinstated? Govvy ( talk) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Graham Hancock. Skyerise ( talk) 14:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
What precise BLP violations are there? I don't see them outlined here nor do I see them explained on the noticeboard thread. Ordering sections and arguments over heading titles as such do not strike me as being BLP violations. What am I missing? jps ( talk) 17:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Instead of "best known for", could we do "non-fiction writer who promotes pseudoscientific theories involving ancient civilizations and lost lands"? I, and many other editors, generally prefer not to use "best known for" constructions. I know the use of 'pseudoscientific' in the first sentence is itself under review, but assuming that it's going to stay, how does everyone feel about this new wording? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
New Statesman published an article by him 9 years ago and still calls him a journalist. I don't think he has necessarily retired from that title since then. [2]. jps ( talk) 17:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I question the inclusion of this line from the Telegraph review of AA. What exactly is meant by this? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
"With Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse, Graham Hancock has declared war on archaeologists". The Conversation (website). Hypnôs ( talk) 18:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove ‘pseudoscience’ references on basis of no evidence or citations. Recommend using ‘reporter/journalist’. Type of language is primarily used in a negative manner or character damaging and not all that descriptive. Tomrochesterpeary ( talk) 21:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree on your argument. This is the same as guilty until proven innocent. Regardless of his claims which mainstream does not all side with that is irrelevant the choice of language is damaging and conjure up a negative bias. In that case change the Jesus wiki to fictional character. Tomrochesterpeary ( talk) 11:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Appears to be a conscious effort to damage someone’s reputation. As much as there are skeptics saying his theories are not true those same skeptics cannot prove their theories either. This is a request to remove this choice of language. Change to (who’s theories are debated and not yet accepted by mainstream science) this would be a more acceptable use of language. Tomrochesterpeary ( talk) 11:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Citations can be biased, surely we agree on that. Michael Shermer professional skeptic who published on scientific American was left unable to argue after the JRE podcast and has retracted some of what he said but a 2017 article still remains in place. Use Pseudo is not evidence it’s just an opinion. Wiki should publish facts, if you’re only looking at negative press then you’ll only see that Tomrochesterpeary ( talk) 15:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I see there has been a lot of discussion here and that it's obviously extremely gridlocked. So, I'm just passing my opinion: This article is an utter disgrace towards Wikipedia itself.
You guys are presenting an author who managed to sell millions of books on ancient history, who, at least since the beginning of the 2000s, has based every single one of his major theories on the work of "real" academics or simply retold their theories in a perfectly scientific manner (mind: he's more of a compiler than a ("crank" 🤦♂️) theorist), and who has a level of sophistication both in his style of writing as well as in his style of speech none of you guys here could ever measure up to. Yet you feel the need to belittle this man who is obviously so much more intelligent than the whole bunch of you. Hence, the best you manage to come up with is to present him as a total loon. If anything, this tells a lot about the authors of this article (and all of its defenders) but hardly anything relevant about Mr Hancock.
I, myself, have studied History at a reputable Western university for 5 years (have you?), and yet, in the last 4 1/2 years, I learned so incredibly much more about what actually could have happened in prehistory by turning to "out of the box" writers like Mr Hancock. Mainstream theories simply don't do the job if all evidence is considered (which they always avoid to do). At university, I witnessed the reasons for our highly flawed understanding of human cultural evolution: scholarly arrogance, vain and an incredible amount of mental dullness. If you take historians for gods, you've obviously never met one in person. And yet, you base all your arguments on their desperate attempts of defending their own, often fully absurd theories. I do not believe that a single one of the fierce commentators here has read just a single book by Mr Hancock in full.
I know this comment won't change your minds. But, driven by your need for belittling, I felt the need to belittle you. I can do that in good conscious because I used to be in your position (frankly, never quite on such a low level), and I later learned that knowing nothing can cause vanity in humans. In the future, I'm also going to learn not to be bothered any more by small minds like you. Mr Hancock, btw, is an excellent role model for that. 79.153.51.191 ( talk) 14:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
historians for gods.
I did not understand the proper parameters for content in that context. 2603:6081:7840:18C:99F8:F831:151:8752 ( talk) 05:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
A significant number of the sources about Hancock describe him as a "conspiracy theorist" or say he peddles "conspiracy theories" (e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6]), because apart from being factually incorrect his views are founded on the idea that academics cover up evidence and try to silence the truth. This isn't mentioned in the anywhere in the article currently, but it probably should be. Maybe we need a section on Hancock's general relationship with the scholarly mainstream? – Joe ( talk) 15:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it. I do see an interesting comment on his self-editing which might be useful. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic conversation (see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)
|
---|
|
"The argument is essentially this: The authorities who study human prehistory are ignoring—or covering up—the true foundations of the world"
"Hancock, scientists say, doesn’t understand how eagerly they’d leap at this evidence if it really existed ... As archaeologist Carl Feagans writes in a review of Ancient Apocalypse, “Every single archaeologist I know would be elated to discover any previously unknown civilization of the Ice Age".
Off-topic conversation (see
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)
|
---|
|
This is directly related to above closed thread:
Flint Dibble's piece in The Conversation is given some space in the section about Ancient Apocalypse, although his critique also reviews much of Hancock's earlier work. This includes a statement about "reinforc[ing] white supremacist ideas", which Dibble actually applies to Ignatius Donelly. It is only in the next paragraph that Dibble (correctly) draws a direct line to Fingerprints of the Gods, where the "white gods" topos is expounded. Not familiar yet with all facets of Ancient Apocalypse, I'm asking: does Hancock still propagate these views anywhere in the 2022 series? According to Jason Colavito's review of American Atlantis in Skeptic [7], Hancock made a "volte-face" in this respect. So I wonder if the statement by Dibble about "reinforc[ing] white supremacist ideas" is in the right place in that section. Austronesier ( talk) 18:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page forces the opinion that Graham Hancock promotes "pseudoscientific" theories. its even the first thing that shows up on google when you search his name. There is no argument or evidence stating what is so wrong with the evidence that he has presented. The narrarive that the possibilities he talks about shouldnt be considered is distructive to the inelectual progression of out society. 50.83.224.149 ( talk) 06:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
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.
There is ample evidence of white supremacist statements and links. His latest documentary features some of his white supremacist chums. Why is he getting the kid glove treatment here? 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:1C31:F2CC:D14C:186 ( talk) 14:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that's some gatekeeping right there. Govvy, are you going to self-ban from this page or does this need reporting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:725A:838D:88E9:189F ( talk) 17:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
About halfway through Joe Rogan Expierience no. 1897, Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock promote the use of rediscovered “lost” ancient technology. This includes (A) “plasmoid” energy generators without moving parts and based “sacred numbers” and “vibrations”; (B) Mazda cars with green, efficient engines based on lost ancient technologies; and (C) secret Maldives laboratories filing 100s of lost ancient technology, open source patents. These are really weird, pseudoscientific ideas that Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson are openly espousing.
Graham Hancock also insinuated that the prehistoric use of lost technology is one of the explanations that archaeologists overlook the evidence for his lost advance civilization.
“The other thing is is when we talk about these ancient technologies if we're only looking for a mere reflection of ourselves. We could overlook it completely.”
and
“I always go back to the ancient Egyptian Traditions that speak of priests chanting as these huge blocks were lifted into the air were they using some kind of sound uh effect some kind of some kind of use of sound that was able to manipulate matter. We know that sound can manipulate matter as a matter of fact but they're lifting these blocks."
For the actual discussion, go to Randall Carlson & Graham Hancock on Lost Technology and the Great Pyramids on Youtube.
for some fan reactions, go to An Ancient Apocalypse? Graham Hancock and Netflix on Youtube. Paul H. ( talk) 19:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I just listened to his Ted X Talk he is certainly not promoting the recreational use of Ayahuasca. Clearly it’s quite the opposite. 68.229.68.5 ( talk) 02:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
In the section on Ancient Apocalypse (2022), I had made this addition that another user removed after deeming it unnecessary:
In my opinion, this detail is useful from an encyclopedic point of view. One wants to know what academics think, but also what other journalists than Hancock think, since the man builds his "fame" on his opposition to the "archaeological elite".
In a nutshell, I think it is important to give some examples of journalists who think differently from Hancock, just to help contextualize his argument.
I don't want to get into an editing war, so I'm asking here for the opinion (ideally argued) of some other Wikipedians so that we can determine together if the addition is totally useless.
A more synthetic reformulation of the addition I propose could possibly serve as a compromise. Since English is not my first language, perhaps someone else will be more apt to express the essence of the contribution in a few words and with more natural wording. Renardeau.arctique ( talk) 16:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Graham Hancock is not a pseudoscientist , he is a journalist and nothing more. 2A01:799:15A2:B500:F89D:55C2:6544:7C6E ( talk) 11:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A01:799:15A2:B500:E160:C940:326A:211 ( talk) 13:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Graham Hancock is not a pseudoscientist , he is a journalist and nothing more.
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page presents a biased and nonfactual summary of Graham Hancock. Labels like "psudoscience" carry a clear bias and should not be considered factual. Please consider editing the language, and at the very least, presenting a contrary point of view.
This page clearly does not represent a comprehensive or favorable view of Graham Hancock's work. Why is Wikipedia taking a stance on trying to decide who is using "science" or "pseudoscience"? Mapleleiff ( talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Wiki should not take a favorable stance on any one subject, person, or topic. It is information. It there should there be neutral on the matter. Claiming his ideas or anyone’s ideas are pseudoscience (which by your own definition on here they aren’t) takes a stand on what his ideas are. He has never made a claim to be a scientist or an archeologist. He presents ideas. These ideas shouldn’t be persecuted simply because they do not fall inline with the main stream view of the past. He’s not saying things are true but asking relevant and interesting questions. Many of the ideas presented here and opinions of Hancock are just that opinions of the man and this shouldn’t be a platform used to slander and harm an individual simply because you don’t agree with him. Dewayde ( talk) 18:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The sources used on this sentence within the wiki do not use the term "pseudoscience" and it is a jump to go to this term from the terms pseudohistory and pseudoarcheology to pseudoscience. Pseudoscience implies that archeology is a science. Archeology often incorporates scientific conclusions from geology, etc and uses testing that is also used in the sciences. It is clearly an academic discipline such as history. However, it is incorrect to claim it is a science or call its conclusions "scientific theories". Eric8911 ( talk) 16:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Pseudoarchaeology, like any pseudoscience, is always aimed at the nonexpert and the non-professional interested in the discipline concerned.– Joe ( talk) 06:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The word “promotes” is used in some places and speculation is more correctly used later in the article. I’d recommend sticking to the facts and making a claim that he speculates is strictly correct. He in fact does not promote pseudoscience and makes clarifying statements and caveats to his claims that he is not an archeologist but a journalist. Wiki shouldn’t be a platform for cyber bullying an individual but a place of true and accurate information. It calls into question the validity of wiki when opinion and obvious attempts to harm an individual are made and permitted to be housed on such a platform. Dewayde ( talk) 19:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
He in fact does not promote pseudoscienceSo, your opinion is that the things he promotes are not pseudoscience. Reliable sources disagree with you. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Wiki shouldn’t be a platform for cyber bullyinglol. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding whether we should mention his being "permanently stoned" (Hancock's words) in "Career" section ( [10] [11] [12] [13]) - perhaps it might make more sense if we include a longer quote. He actually says "for 24 years I was pretty much permanently stoned ... and I felt that it helped me with my work as a writer, and perhaps at some point it did". Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The article on Graham Hancock STARTS (!) with the following:
"Graham Bruce Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. He is known for his pseudoscientific theories[1] (...)."
I want to dispute the neutrality and also the objectivity of the claim that Graham Hancock is known for his "pseudoscientific" theories. I understand that this is meant to be taken from an arguably reliable source (Brian Regal´s "Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia"). However, applying Wikipedia´s NPOV standard this claim should say that Graham Hancock´s theories are criticized/viewed as pseudoscientific and that he himself and others dispute that claim. One could add that he´s viewed like that by "many" or by "the majority of archaeologists" or some accurate addition to that effect.
The problem, for me, is that it is just claimed that he is known for his pseudoscientific theories, as if that was just an objective truth. But I believe one could make the case that this claim is not objective at all - and there are no reasons given in the article as to why precisely his theories just are pseudoscientific. I am not here to make this case (yet) but just to initiate a constructive debate around this issue. I strongly believe that this claim is not neutral but may be influenced by a specific view, even though this view is arguably held by the majority of archaeologists. For this fact alone cannot indisputably refute the content of Hancock´s arguments. Therefore I believe the neutrality and objectivity of the article could be restored by either an addition of reasons why Hancock´s theories just are pseudoscientific or by the following correction: The sentence "He is known for his pseudoscientific theories" could be replaced by the sentence "His theories are viewed as ´pseudoscientific´ by the majority of archaeologists".
If this suggestion is found to be unreasonable, not helpful, biased, problematic, or anything else that would undermine its aspiration, I would be very happy to be told the exact reasons for that, if possible.
Thank you!
Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani on the Keys ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure If I'm doing this correctly, as I've not been an active member of wikipedia since the early '00s, but I'd like to echo this sentiment and suggest that, after having read two of his books, I would more consider Hancock to be a *theorist* and not a *pseudoscientist*. Some theories he puts forth are such that they cannot be proven in our lifetimes, but perhaps they could in the future. He doesn't tout them as fact: just as theory. Always uses words like "perhaps" or "in my opinion". And even some of his theories already do have some proof that has come about recently: like the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis - there has been a massive impact crater discovered in Greenland that could definitely count as evidence, but it's still early days and we haven't dated the crater yet. And when I compare Hancock's writings to those of other, universally-agreed pseudoscientists, to me there is a clear difference. Like when a "doctor" says "use these patches and it will cure cancer" and then posts fake findings or skews the data in a way to make it look like they work, when zero clinical trials have been done even though there is nothing preventing him from doing that. At the very least I think it would be wise to say that he is a theorist, but some of his theories are un-provable and conjecture at best, fantasy/conspiracy at worst. Something like that. Because I was turned off by Hancock for years because of his reputation. But after finally reading by myself and going through the paces of checking to see if anything he says can be proven or disproven, I've found that he does indeed have some great sources off of which he bases his theories. And as I said - they are theories and he doesn't tout them as fact - so I think he definitely needs to be distinguished from actual pseudoscientists who seek to hoodwink the public for personal gain. Again, sorry if I'm doing this wrong - just let me know and I'll put this text somewhere else. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketheburns ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the term 'pseudoscientific' used in here! I mean isn't archeology itself is built upon a lot of speculation and conjecture! Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral and objective information platform. Not some biased and sensored information platform where anyone can put an objectionable title on someone. Ashfiqur112 ( talk) 07:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. One thing that crossed my mind when I read the top sentence about Hancock was that this is written by someone who tries to discredit him in a subtle, sneaky way while claiming to be objective. The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of these people, slamming someone for pseudoscience and then they completely use their own subjective opinions when writing what’s supposed to be an objective description of said person. The worst part is how they try to conceal and deny it. Or they claim that the discussion has already been made and is concluded. By whom exactly? Likeminded gentlemen who happen to have been registered users of Wiki for a while? Tdawgh ( talk) 00:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Look at Kuhn, consider the Sociology of Knowledge as it applies to the Guild like behavior of academics possessing their topics.
It is only in the last 150 years that the Germ Theory of Disease supplanted the Miasma. We're the physicians who rejected the Germ Theory pseudoscientists? How about the folks who proffered the new concepts. For quite a while, they were on the outside.
The historians who favored the Confederacy in the Lost Cause literature, were they pseudohistorians?
Academic science is pretty much a closed shop. One gets initiated and quickly learns that either incrementing the accepted paradigm or digging into its components to validate that paradigm are essential for membership and advancement. Heretics are treated very badly.
Outsiders are simply not welcome. This is a problem because academia does not have an equivalent counter narrative. It responds to outsiders first in an ad hominem manner and then searches for a loose thread that can unravel the whole suit. This comes down to an argument from authority.
Generally, the lay people who find these topics of interest and literate and thoughtful. They are not much in danger of being seduced into a belief system that does not meet their own criteria. Further, they don't need to be rescued because if they believe Hancock lock, stock and barrel no tangible harm results.
An open minded approach that involved educating in a constructive way rather that indignant refutation would be a step in the right direction. 2603:6081:7840:18C:99F8:F831:151:8752 ( talk) 01:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All references citing Hancock's work as speculative are now nearly 20 years old. The science has changed, why hasn't this page? Jippoes ( talk) 03:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Here. [14] Starts with "This series publicly disparages archaeologists and devalues the archaeological profession on the basis of false claims and disinformation. I write to encourage you to correctly classify the genre of the show, to provide disclaimers about the unfounded suppositions in the show, and ideally to balance the deleterious content in the show with scientifically accurate information about our human past." It notes that "the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists". There's also "Netflix and ITN Productions are actively assaulting our expert knowledge, fostering distrust of our scientific community, diminishing the credibility of our members in the public eye, and undermining our extensive and ongoing efforts at outreach and public education." Well worth reading and I hope we can use it as a source. Meanwhile I'll add it as an EL. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The Netflix show is very popular and this article lacks any of the production information that is normally included in TV shows. The article could also refute any pseudoscience at length, which this article cannot. Victor Grigas ( talk) 19:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Who are you people who call yourselves moderators (i.e. Doug Weller)? Why are you all so closed minded and refuse to be open to alternative ideas on subjects that are not fully understood? You just all stick complacently to your "mainstream" ideas and refuse to listen to anything different. Very shameful and pseudoscientic mindset if you ask me. Oatmeal89 ( talk) 22:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Close this rant. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Why? 70.53.24.119 ( talk) 22:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we please come up with a consensus to stick to the opening lead sentence of the article, it's constantly shifting and loosing focus. He is not primarily a journalist, whoever changed it too that is doing the article wrong. The last thing he did was the Netflix show, that in essence is a TV presenter! His focus from author and writer shifted to secondary? Jeez. The language skills here are falling back to the stone-age! Govvy ( talk) 11:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Concerning language skills: “loosing focus” - find one flaw. Also, it seems sneaky and manipulative not to mention that he’s also a journalist. Obviously an attempt to make him seem less credible, as a writer can more easily be discarded as a “fiction-writer” as opposed to a truth-seeking journalist. Be better. Tdawgh ( talk) 23:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
corrupt and dogmaticis that they reject his ideas. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi there Wikipedia I’m here taking time to sincerely ask you for the most logical request someone might have. Please authorize Graham Hancock to be the sole moderator of his page. This is the least you can do. 2600:1700:EEC4:8080:BD9D:E7B9:ECAE:461C ( talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
If you have ideas about stuff, do some science, like this guy. Roxy the dog 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It would be in the best interest of Wikipedia and users of Wikipedia to have an unbiased moderator for this page. 184.71.72.62 ( talk) 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The describing of Mr Hancock as a "pseudoscientist" & so on, is purposely done to discredit his ideas, which, if so poorly constructed, could be discredited by using some sort of scientific analysis of his claims, instead they are summarily dismissed as "pseudoscience".
This is simply not good enough & unacceptable in our modern age, when such slander of respected commentators is obviously partisan & used to hide the fact that his opponents do not substantively address his claims,queries &/or propositions. The material evidence he points-out,is also left uninvestigated, that's not a very scientific response to his claims either.
I find this slanderous approach to Mr Hancock & his extensive work/writing, to be risible as well as unnecessarily vitriolic. Please amend this TERRIBLE review of Mr Hancock & his work asap. 94.193.62.179 ( talk) 13:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
How is pseudoscientific considered to be NPOV? The Wikipedia page for pseudoscience states “Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method”. Can we ascertain that such an author meets this definition with his claims? binary.dat ( talk) 05:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Would a philosopher be considered a pseudoscientist then by that definition? It would seem that be the case which doesn’t make very little sense in logical terms. Philosophy supersedes science and is the formation of it. It seems very hard to make a claim that philosophical dialogue can be pseudoscientific. binary.dat ( talk) 19:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Would a philosopher be considered a pseudoscientist then by that definition?Doesn't matter. The only question relevant for Wikipedia is: do reliable sources call that philosopher a pseudoscientist? For Hancock, that is the case. This is the Talk page for Hancock, so, everything else does not belong here. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
See
[17] Ancient Apocalypse host Graham Hancock gave a lengthy, self-pitying interview to London Real in which he celebrated his own bravery while offering a series of oxymoronic and illogical arguments in a sustained attacked on Wikipedia, archaeology in general, and one archaeologist in particular.
Hemiauchenia (
talk)
19:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change all of your references to Pseudoscience or pseudoarcheology to science and archeology…. There are over 100 scientists who agree with him. 2600:1016:B100:FC01:D0E6:D138:8716:711 ( talk) 00:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
How about you remove anything calling him a psudoscientist and pseudoarcheologist as he says he is not an archeologist or scientist Ogular ( talk) 18:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)