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 |
See [1] articles on him. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Huge issues with the sources of "truth" for this article. So you won't even allow regular WP editors to edit footnotes, the main source of authority for WP, yet you footnote the first one "pseudoscientific" and link it to something completely related to the topic. Ok. It's as if I footnote the eulogy to your life on the word "cynical," then link to the dictionary definition. NO relation to your life. If it's actual PS, prove it in the sourcing, early on. Also, this pokes at a huge flaw in WP in that it only accepts certain sources, which themselves are cyclical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitpenny2001 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
You footnote the first one "pseudoscientific"did really not make much sense to me at the time. Now, after what you wrote above, I guess "the first one" could mean "the first source", but how does one "footnote a source"? Or, more precisely, "footnote a source pseudoscientific"? Maybe "sourcing the word "pseudoscientific" to something"?
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Erase all the uses of pseudoscience, pseudohistory, pseudoarchyolody 2A00:23C6:6A11:9801:C92A:C48A:6F10:B3BA ( talk) 09:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph includes "Earth Changes" among the list of Hancock's beliefs. Given the prominence of this reference, perhaps the article should contain a specific example of Hancock proposing or arguing for the existence of past cataclysms (or their future likelihood). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcervelli ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second sentence in the article refers to a quite unpopular book entitled "Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia" (only one review on Amazon.com). As a result, purely based on that unreliable source, the author of this article is discredited as unreliable himself as it suggests at he may as well be a pseudoscientist himself. Please correct or substantiate with more reliable source or remove completely this entry as it serves no informative purpose at all. Boleslawwolowik ( talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
At issue here with claiming Hancock's work as unreliable for the simple fact that his work is not "peer-reviewed" is itself a fallacy, [1] the definition of "credible" depends on the discipline--in journalism, where Hancock is clearly considered ethical and reputable is proven by him working for multiple repudiated British papers (including; The Guardian, The Independent, and The Times) also working as a correspondent and editor in the field. That Hancock graduated with a Sociology degree from Durham University also seems to get swept under the rug when considering his works as journalistically credible. In fact, what Hancock is actually doing is reporting on and synthesizing peer reviewed papers from multiple disciplines (a discipline not even taught in academia). The tradition within those disciplines to accept new paradigms implied by scholarly research is that of a very deliberate and slow moving system which precludes criticism of their "accepted" findings. Thus, a true definition of Hancock (including the multiple references to his career and work as being; pseudo-scientific, pseudo-history, and pseudo-archeology are absolutely misplaced and misleading) would be more complete and accurate if it were designated as he calls it himself, journalistic, not the many misnomers ascribed by his critics in academia and on Wikipedia who have connotated his journalistic works as being "Pseudo-insert field unable to accept challenges to it because their salaries depend on their opinions being "accepted" as true. Hancock, in his synthesis of peer reviewed data from multiple disciplines, challenges the core beliefs taught in multiple academic disciplines which have proven themselves incapable of absorbing data which contradict their worldview. Therefore calling Hancock pseudo anything, especially in the context of a Wikipedia article on the man(including the first paragraph describing him), is in fact insulting to the entire field of Journalism and emboldens prejudice within academia by those whose careers are threatened by the presentation of peer reviewed data which contradicts their very livelihood by Hancock. Terratian ( talk) 16:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)terratian
The only circles we are going around in Ian are the slim references editors on Wikipedia are clinging to in order to keep a journalist defined as a "pseudo" because the peer reviewed work he cites in his popular works challenges the dominant paradigms in the fields he reports on, the conclusions Hancock comes up with are based on the stark peer-reviewed evidence that even a "lay-person" can see implies current theory needs to be re-examined. Hancock is nothing like Erich von Däniken comparing Hancocks work to von Daniken (an alien influence speculator--I won't even touch on recently released government reports on UAF's which absolutely imply non-human intelligence active on our planet) proves the editors have not even read Hancocks journalistic reporting on the history of civilization and the influence the Younger_Dryas potentially had on it, we can use the Clovis_culture#Clovis_First article as an example of dominate Pseudo opinion in academia must be revised when peer reviewed evidence contradicts the theory, otherwise academia and Wikipedia are suffering from Cognitive_dissonance [2] Even the Brian Regal book you cite in an attempt to end discussion on the correct designation of Hancock proves what the 7 million people whom have actually read Hancock's journalist endeavors are so keenly interested in, read on page xii of Regal's Introduction to Pseudoscience where he defines it "reputably" for the reader, "A working definition pseudoscience(from the Greek for false science) is that it is any intellectual or technological pursuit that purports to use scientific methodology or philosophy to prove some temporal or physical reality, but which in fact does not..." Ian, once we can get you to stop practicing pseudo journalism and academia to review new evidence clearly contradicting old dominate theories with your authority to "edit" this page to exclude any reference to "pseudo" anything in regards to Hancocks reputable journalistic review of peer reviewed evidence and what that evidence might imply regarding human civilization prior to the last glacial maximum. Make the edit, or you are absolutely impervious to fact Terratian ( talk) 17:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Terratian
References
There is a consistent issue with people requesting "pseudoscientific theories" or "pseudo-" in general to be removed or changed, which reflects on the article neither conveying clearly enough what the terms mean, nor why Hancock and his work are labeled as such.
1) "Pseudoscientific" seems to imply (to the layperson) that Hancock claims to be a scientists and/or that he is using the methods and principles of science - which he doesn't claim to use - in the wrong way. Pseudo-scholarship or a similar term would be perhaps more accurate and less confusing.
2) There's a lack of explanation why he is labeled as a pseudo-historian/-archaeologists. I think there needs to be a section explaining, with examples, why he is regarded as such (cherry picking of evidence, distorting data, conspiratorial framing, lack of falsifiability, misrepresenting views of historians/archaeologists, arguing against straw-men and outdated ideas, etc.). Hypnôs ( talk) 13:19, 8 July 2021 (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.
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can you look into changing the following statement- "He is known for his pseudoscientific theories"? This makes Mr Hancock seem like an unreliable source when it comes to particular topics. All of the theories Graham discusses have an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting them and he is quite literally re-writing history. He has also sold over 7 million copies of his books worldwide and has archaeologists, quite literally, scratching their heads when it comes to predating ancient civilizations and monuments. JosephHatton101 ( talk) 23:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The evidence presented in Hancocks journalistic books are not "his theories", the evidence presented implies new theories which Hancock reports. The evidence reported in Hancocks works are from well cited, peer reviewed academic research. The trend here of editors to side with academics which are threatened by the data holistically presented by Hancock and applying the term "Pseudo" to that evidence is a fallacy. Hancock is a journalist, as he calls himself. Terratian ( talk) 17:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Terratian
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Graham Hancock also was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast on episode No. 1543. Holystonejack ( talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (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.
Large points in his research have being proven accurate by geologists. The term "pseudoscience" needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.88.124 ( talk) 06:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Irrespective of finding sources to substantiate or refute the term 'pseudoscientific' or 'pseudoscientific theories', we should first recognise that this phrasing is inaccurate in any case. Graham Hancock does not suggest he is a scientist, nor does not purport to use the scientific method per se. The term 'pseudoscientific' is therefore refuting a claim he does not make for himself. Others in the public eye might consider him to be 'pseudoscientific' but this is opinion based on a misunderstanding of the term itself, and is certainly not fact. If you must include the word 'pseudoscientific', then this should at least be referenced as opinion only, i.e. 'according to...'. In the same vein, some (or even many) might hold the opinion that Donald Trump is racist, but I don't see this being reported on his Wikipedia page as a factual statement in the opening paragraph.
The word 'hypotheses' would remove unnecessarily emotive and arguably fairly damaging (to Graham personally) language. It would also be more accurate as per the dictionary definition of 'hypotheses', which is simply: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.". This is all Graham Hancock purports and strives to do.
Now, to reference an example that you asked for from the above Editor. In 2014, Graham Hancock proposed that a human-era cataclysm occurred approx 12800 years ago: https://grahamhancock.com/ancient-cataclysm-hancock/
In 2018, Science Mag acknowledged a human-era cataclysm occurred approx 13000 years ago: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humans
Just one example of a few that are available. One might anticipate there may also be others to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The term 'pseudoscientific' is therefore refuting a claim he does not make for himselfI am sorry but that's simply not what pseudoscientific means. His drivel is pseudoscience and arguing otherwise is doing damage to real science and thereby humanity's hope for survival. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2DC4:A3DE:F7EE:7C3C ( talk) 21:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You may have said it umpteen times, but that doesn't make your logic any more sound. The phrase 'pseudoscientific theories' specifically is inappropriate, and demonstrates a misuse of language. The word 'hypotheses' fits much better precisely because of the point you raised yourself: Graham does not submit his work to peer-reviewed journals, because only a scientist (or a pseudoscientist) would do this! Graham is not presenting his views as "science" - nor is he trying to attain peer-reviewed approval. Therefore they cannot be 'pseudo science'.
Now, you may disagree with his views, and you might wish to paint them in some unfavourable light - but there should be no room for personal bias on Wikipedia. The scientific veracity (or lack thereof) of Graham's hypotheses is something that only a scientific approach may ultimately discern at some point in the future - as new information about the world comes to light.
When Galileo was persecuted for his views on heliocentrism, he was one of very few who believed that planets revolve around the sun and not vice versa. Similarly, Wikipedia may have the power to infect mass opinion, but there is no moral excuse for the wilful misrepresentation of public figures. Wikipedia has a responsibility to remain dispassionate, sober and accurate in its choice of words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is my point. Galileo was eventually proven to be correct. The Vatican themselves even admitted it... in 1992(!) and apologised! So, whilst there is seemingly some precedent for doggedly holding on to an obvious falsehood, I would certainly hope that this matter can be put right in a more timely fashion.
Interesting. To extend your reference to the BBC's False Balance policy: Do you suppose there is a reason that it is impossible to find anything published by the BBC (generally considered to be the most balanced journalistic organisation in the world) wherein they refer to Graham Hancock as a pseudoscientist? I would suggest it is because they do, in fact, understand the meaning of that word. They understand that it would be unbalanced and too emotive. I am surprised that this is not more obvious. It is a shame we were unable to come to an agreement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, now you're getting it. At least partially. 'Pseudoscience' is quite literally a misnomer. Whilst it would still be a baffling label considering the perfectly reasonable alternative phrasing ('hypotheses' or 'controversial hypotheses') due to the fact it is based on a biased opinion ONLY (yes, it's merely an opinion, and it is not a fact - there are several reputable sources who do not refer to Mr. Hancock with defamatory labels), the term 'Pseudoarchaeology' would at least have some linguistic cohesion about it.
A similar example of opinion-and-not-fact would be to change the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia page about Islam to state: "Islam is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that teaches that there is only one God (Allah), and that Muhammad is a messenger of God. It is known for its cruel and hateful ideology, espousing the idea that homosexuality is sinful and that apostasy should be punishable by death."
Now, would such an edit be wise? Is it OK to include this when we consider that numerous academics (reputable sources) see Islam in this way? Or, do we try to remain impartial? After all, there are many academics who would not agree with this assessment, and as such sources can be found on both sides. This is what makes something "controversial", and that is why the term "controversial" is a much less biased, neutral word.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.74.241 ( talk) 17:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
What you have just stated (that Graham Hancock is referenced as "pseudoscientific" in most sources) is verifiably untrue. Here are the Google search results for proof:
"Graham Hancock" 1,380,000 results. "Graham Hancock" +"inspiring" 430,000 results "Graham Hancock" +"writer" 104,000 results "Graham Hancock" +"journalist" 68,800 results "Graham Hancock" +"pseudo scientific" 4,320 results (of which the Wikipedia defamation is in fact the top result, leading to further reputation damage and proliferation of a false idea, i.e. Google uses Wikipedia content; academics and students use Wikipedia as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If Wikipedia insists on preserving reputation-damaging misnomers, it can at least have the facts on its side, and provide evidence of such. However many supposedly “reputable sources” that reference Graham Hancock as 'pseudoscientic' or 'pseudoarchaelogical', there are a greater number of equally (or more) reputable sources that do not.
Ok, interesting. So, using the - operator this time around, and following your suggested method for searching, this time I get the following:
"Speculation" would be somewhat accurate - nothing wrong with that. But your suggestion that Graham's work would not be aptly described by the word 'hypotheses' demonstrates an unsophisticated grasp of language. That is perhaps the main point of this whole thing. Words should be used with care. Wikipedia is supposed to be an educational resource, is it not? Not a propagandistic tool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
However many supposedly “reputable sources” that reference Graham Hancock as 'pseudoscientic' or 'pseudoarchaelogical', there are a greater number of equally (or more) reputable sources that do not
So what? This is also true for every other statement in Wikipedia. Taking a random example from the main page: Only a few reliable sources say
Pierre Nkurunziza has died, and the vast majority of reliable sources don't even mention him because their subject is something else. Even of the one who do, most do not say he is dead.
You are not the first who claims that in order to call something a pseudoscience, every single source about that something is needed to say it. It's simply not true: Argument from silence. Still, defenders of this pseudoscience as well as other pseudosciences try to use that fallacy all the time. We call a spade a spade if several reliable sources call it a spade, not just if all of them do. If you had found any reliable sources which said it is not pseudoscience, you would have a point.
Apropos points: Has anybody found the points from Large points in his research have being proven accurate by geologists
yet? --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 10:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The human-era cataclysm he has been talking about for a decade or so (which he dated to approx 12,800 BP) now has recent growing support from numerous mainstream scientists who believe that the cataclysm occurred approx 12,800 BP. Pretty much exactly as per Graham's research. There are other examples, including his dating of Gobekli Tepe, etc. But... alas, I can see I'm getting nowhere here. It's perhaps inevitable that dogmatism creeps in to all large media platforms eventually. I'm afraid you do definitely seem more interested in policing this page than in ensuring its accuracy, which does undermine Wikipedia's mission in my view. This is a phenomenon that Larry Sanger himself has picked up on, and as a result he thinks Wikipedia is broken. I'm inclined to agree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, Dennis McKenna (senior research scientist for the Natural Health Products Research Group at the British Columbia Institute of Technology); and Rick Strassman (clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of New Mexico), to name a couple. They respect Hancock a lot and have worked with him on various occasions, i.e. their collaboration on the book 'DMT Dialogues', wherein there are several examples of dialogue which clearly demonstrate that they take his points very seriously.
I'm afraid the empty rhetoric seems to be on your side, since I have substantiated and referenced everything I have said here. Have you though? Why use such a poor "reliable source" (Brian Regal's 10yr-old book with one review on Amazon, which does not even refer to Hancock as a 'pseudoscientist') for justifying the use of this misnomer? There can be no reasonable excuse for this, however much spaghetti-logic you wrap it in.
To Doug Weller: Sanger is a highly respected individual and as such, by your own logic, his claims against you and other editors should be presented at the top of your respective Wikipedia pages and presented as fact (with footnotes).— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Hob, please explain why the experts I have referenced are irrelevant, with specific examples. Also, try to refrain from rude personal sleights, i.e. “you have no idea how science works” - because I do, actually. J8jweb ( talk) 13:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- one of the areas suggested as “pseudoscientific” is research into altered states of consciousness, as per the text on Graham’s page. The experts I’ve referenced conduct research in precisely this field. You seem not to know who Dennis McKenna is... which says a lot. J8jweb ( talk) 13:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
OK let’s leave it there chaps. For what it’s worth, I’ve quite enjoyed it - some of you did quite well, and even came close to taking a heroic leap through the fires of cognitive dissonance. Not an easy task! I think I’ll score you a 4 out of 10. J8jweb ( talk) 13:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can you remove the term pseudoscientific. Mr Hancock never claims to be and has in fact said that he is categorically a journalist, a writer and nothing more. Therefore he cannot have pseudoscientific theories. Simply alternative theories on the past to the mainstream.
Many thanks GhjB123 ( talk) 12:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 12:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This isn't Sock puppetry, this is many people rising against the Bias Wikipedia is holding against Graham Hancock. The public consensus is that he is not a pseudoscientist. He has nothing to do with Erich Von Daniken. He performs journalistic investigation, he's not claiming to have or write papers. You and Roxy the dog are wrong and are holding bias. This isn't a neutral approach at all. The fact that this is requested so much is because it's the truth and Wikipedia's article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.173.41 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
the link 'review' is wrong, it is currently https://fee.org/articles/book-review-lords-of-poverty-the-power-prestige-and-corruption-of-the-international-aid-business-by-graham-hancock/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2770:9d0:8a78:73ff:fe8f:899b ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "pseudoscientist" to "Scientific Researcher and Reporter". Hanock is not a scientist and does not claim to be.
The label is misinformative, incorrect and appears to be a blunt attempted smear to discredit him.
His books also contain listed and detailed scientific citation to published science papers and texts carried out by accredited scientists and scientific bodies.
His job is to report their findings and piece things together, much like any other dedicated journalist would. Gettothetruth49 ( talk) 08:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He may have been born in Edinburgh but I think I heard in an interview, he said he was from Bath, England 85.255.233.151 ( talk) 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the pseudoscience from the bio. He has enough facts and proofs for his theories for it to be a historical theory. That is not pseudoscience 2601:985:181:30A0:6448:205F:B8C1:B704 ( talk) 20:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This section mixes personal background information as well as education and journalism over three paragraphs. It should be split into two sections: one with personal information (first and third paragraph), the other with education and journalism (second paragraph).
Additionally, it does not seem necessary to specifically reference the ethnic origin of his spouse. There is no specific relevance of this information as it applies to their relationship. Specifically the sentence referencing his spouse should be something like, "Graham Hancock is married to Santha Faiia, who is a professional photographer specializing in ancient cultures and monuments.[7] They have six children.[9]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpootel ( talk • contribs)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Graham Hancock refutes and regrets the use of the term pseudoscientist to describe him or his work which is used both for the short description and within the body of the entry.
I suggest changing this to alternative scientific theories OR alternative historical theories AND author of alternative historical theories. Rokkmedia ( talk) 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
and, I assume others. I couldn't tell if it was HIS fake version of his own history, or a "parallel universe" he writes about, or what. I think the title for the section needs clarification, and/or the title should defined & explained in the very first sentence of the section. 68.206.248.178 ( talk) 00:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
All history in these time frames is pseudohistory. Sad to see Wikipedia is a place where people now inject bias and won’t accept new information. The quest for new information is always so fought against. Scottseeker ( talk) 01:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Apparently Netflix will release a new documentary series presented by Hancock, Ancient Apocalypse, next month. I expect we'll see significantly more views and edits to this article. – Joe ( talk) 06:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it's time to remove "controversial" from Graham Hancock's page. One theory of his after another were proven right and the fact that he's still considered "controversial" is inappropriate and damaging to the scientific community. Unpin ( talk) 18:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hancock describes himself as an "unconventional thinker who raises controversial questions about humanity's past". However, that quote wasn't supported by the source, and I couldn't find any reliable secondary source verifying it; as it served no purpose in the article, I removed it. -- bonadea contributions talk 18:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
it uses past tense terms to refer to his latest documentary series and none of the claims made inside the article were "pseudo", unless evidence to the contrary can be provided. 2600:8807:8547:4B00:91B3:892C:6516:F3E2 ( talk) 02:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I’ve read the responses. What is a ‘reliable source’? He is very clear about what he knows and what he just thinks. Part of the problem is a ton of current established history was also based on conjecture.
Now Wikipedia one of the first sites anyone will find information on the man will immediately see him labeled a pseudoscientist.
This helps carry on this notion that what is established now is rock solid fact which it is not. Gobleki Tepe changed the whole timeline in 1996 (look it up, it’s on Wikipedia) and still you label this man in a way that harms him and his ideas. Shameful. Scottseeker ( talk) 01:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
What is a ‘reliable source’?Read WP:RS to find out. (Addtion: That page been linked before. You have to click on the link to read it.)
Such are the fingerprints of pseudoarchaeology.
not explicitly stateddoes not matter. The source very clearly regards him as such, and we (meaning everybody here) would have to be either stupid to not see that, or motivated by Hancock fandom to exploit a technical loophole in order to get Hancock off the hook. See also WP:WIKILAWYER.
An article [..]] should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That is how Wikipedia works, and that is why it achieves high quality: by excluding bullshit merchants as sources. If you want to change the NPOV policy, you can try Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, but there is little chance of success. Slightly more hopeful possibility: If a source is dismissed as unreliable, check WP:RSP and start a discussion there. I say slightly because pseudoarchaelogical material typically has such poor quality that even non-archaeologists can spot the rookie mistakes if they know anything about how science works. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Hancock is put as an example to pseudoarchaeology but not explicitly stated as such in the sources. One step back: Fagan (2006) explicitly refers to Hancock's work as pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology (p. xvi). Fritze (2009) explicitly labels Hancock a pseudohistorian (p. 218). Please do your homework before claiming that this article contains unsourced statements. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Let Graham Hancock edit his own page… Seems like a bully or a fascist would put forth information about somebody and not let that somebody correct their own biography 186.96.22.52 ( talk) 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it’s time to allow for the truth to be told on this website about Graham’s work. A complete disgrace that we call this a platform of accuracy when academic elites gatekeep for their own self interest.
Absolute disgrace. 2603:7000:2402:FC02:3CCE:B896:B1DD:3B1D ( talk) 22:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
You would have sentenced Galileo. To so casually say something like that is the direct antithesis of the scientific method. You are truly lost. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2603:7000:2402:FC02:3CCE:B896:B1DD:3B1D (
talk) 22:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
New evidence is found every year, yet "mainstream scientific view" as it was called by a user above, still doesn't even want to consider Hancock's theories. It's honestly baffling. You would think those "scientists" would have an interest in finding the truth but instead they protect their outdated data as the only acceptable version of history. It's a joke. Jp0202 ( talk) 23:14, 13 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 the outdated claims about pseudoscience regarding footnote 4 and 5. Embarrassing for Wikipedia that this is still kept like this. 79.130.198.120 ( talk) 06:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Hancock: "Very lazy the way that archaeologists react to an alternative point of view. In my case, they almost never get to grips with the material that I put out there in the books. They just say: "Oh Hancock, he's a pseudoscientists, he's a fraud, he's a liar." They never say why I'm a pseudoscientists, why I'm a fraud or why I'm a liar. They just throw those word out, and they go to Wikipedia and that's what you see. And the point about Wikipedia is, that's the first place, when somebody hears my name or hears about my ideas, first place they gonna go have a look is Wikipedia. And immediately they gonna get turned off, and you can't edit my Wikipedia page, they've locked it, and it's controlled by a group of academics."
Hypnôs ( talk) 08:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Fagan gives two typical examples from Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods (1995):, i.e. they are cited to Fagan (2006). The full citation was given immediately above and then again following the second bullet. The citation to Denton 1981 supports the specific statement,
extensive studies of the Antarctic ice sheet by George H. Denton, published in 1981, which showed the ice to be hundreds of thousands of years old, quoted by Fagan. – Joe ( talk) 13:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure I understood what was wanted here, at first I thought it was about the new programme on netflix where Hancock at the start of each episode has a dig at wikipedia! Govvy ( talk) 13:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
every quotation requires an immediately following a citationor
multiple bullet points: each should have a citation? – Joe ( talk) 14:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Graham Hancock's Wikipedia page, the first two words label him as a former journalist but if you click on the link you provide to Graham's webpage, the first word is journalist. He also continues to call himself an investigative journalist. Can this simple correction from former journalist to just journalist be made? It would be more accurate and you are interested in accuracy, correct? Next it seems you are quick to calling his work pseudoscience which has a negative connotation. Couldn't you just say that his ideas are outside mainstream archeology? The editors are protecting a field that insists on explanations that sound goofier that Graham's ideas such as the enormous, perfectly shaped blocks of the Egyptian pyramids were shaped with granite balls and copper chisels and the claim that the stone carvings of bearded men carrying small handbags at archeological sites all over the world is just a coincidence. It's disappointing if Wikipedia is essentially just protecting the status quo. When was the last time wikipedia had a truly controversial page that turned out later to be true? I think it would be inspiring and interesting to always be pushing and challenging the boundaries of knowledge and worry a little less about consensus which by definition inevitably settles to the boring lowest common denominator. Or maybe the biggest chunk of your donations come from the status quo which brings up one last point. You need to change your business model to charging a small monthly fee if it meant you would not be beholden to any particular group. I think I speak for millions when I say I would gladly pay $10 a month to have a more messy exchange of ideas. Sorry about getting off track. Thank you for your time. 64.52.137.20 ( talk) 15:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
See [ https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ys8i4y/i_have_edited_graham_hancocks_wikipedia_page/] Doug Weller talk 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The whole point of having the WP:ISBN go to special sources is so that we don't appear to prefer one commercial source (Google) over other sources (Open Library, Amazon.com, and 19 others). Besides WP:GBOOKS, there is also an RfC on the topic. The usefulness of a direct-to-page link was made an exception to the overall principle that we rely on special sources to provide links in a neutral manner, not preferring one over the other. Skyerise ( talk) 15:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Have people looked at the articles in further reading by him? They may help, particularly [ https://www.hallofmaat.com/meh/antarctic-farce/]. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Now there is a documentary out which lists his theories in easily consumable detail. Might we open this once again for fleshing out what was presented to give some depth and context to the article? 95.145.51.8 ( talk) 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Wiki needs to update this profile-they’re showing their elitism and gate keeping a journalist’s ability to tell story. 2600:100C:B035:9BFD:DD78:1C45:90B3:4C2E ( talk) 03:57, 17 November 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 |
See [1] articles on him. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Huge issues with the sources of "truth" for this article. So you won't even allow regular WP editors to edit footnotes, the main source of authority for WP, yet you footnote the first one "pseudoscientific" and link it to something completely related to the topic. Ok. It's as if I footnote the eulogy to your life on the word "cynical," then link to the dictionary definition. NO relation to your life. If it's actual PS, prove it in the sourcing, early on. Also, this pokes at a huge flaw in WP in that it only accepts certain sources, which themselves are cyclical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitpenny2001 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
You footnote the first one "pseudoscientific"did really not make much sense to me at the time. Now, after what you wrote above, I guess "the first one" could mean "the first source", but how does one "footnote a source"? Or, more precisely, "footnote a source pseudoscientific"? Maybe "sourcing the word "pseudoscientific" to something"?
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Erase all the uses of pseudoscience, pseudohistory, pseudoarchyolody 2A00:23C6:6A11:9801:C92A:C48A:6F10:B3BA ( talk) 09:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph includes "Earth Changes" among the list of Hancock's beliefs. Given the prominence of this reference, perhaps the article should contain a specific example of Hancock proposing or arguing for the existence of past cataclysms (or their future likelihood). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcervelli ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second sentence in the article refers to a quite unpopular book entitled "Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia" (only one review on Amazon.com). As a result, purely based on that unreliable source, the author of this article is discredited as unreliable himself as it suggests at he may as well be a pseudoscientist himself. Please correct or substantiate with more reliable source or remove completely this entry as it serves no informative purpose at all. Boleslawwolowik ( talk) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
At issue here with claiming Hancock's work as unreliable for the simple fact that his work is not "peer-reviewed" is itself a fallacy, [1] the definition of "credible" depends on the discipline--in journalism, where Hancock is clearly considered ethical and reputable is proven by him working for multiple repudiated British papers (including; The Guardian, The Independent, and The Times) also working as a correspondent and editor in the field. That Hancock graduated with a Sociology degree from Durham University also seems to get swept under the rug when considering his works as journalistically credible. In fact, what Hancock is actually doing is reporting on and synthesizing peer reviewed papers from multiple disciplines (a discipline not even taught in academia). The tradition within those disciplines to accept new paradigms implied by scholarly research is that of a very deliberate and slow moving system which precludes criticism of their "accepted" findings. Thus, a true definition of Hancock (including the multiple references to his career and work as being; pseudo-scientific, pseudo-history, and pseudo-archeology are absolutely misplaced and misleading) would be more complete and accurate if it were designated as he calls it himself, journalistic, not the many misnomers ascribed by his critics in academia and on Wikipedia who have connotated his journalistic works as being "Pseudo-insert field unable to accept challenges to it because their salaries depend on their opinions being "accepted" as true. Hancock, in his synthesis of peer reviewed data from multiple disciplines, challenges the core beliefs taught in multiple academic disciplines which have proven themselves incapable of absorbing data which contradict their worldview. Therefore calling Hancock pseudo anything, especially in the context of a Wikipedia article on the man(including the first paragraph describing him), is in fact insulting to the entire field of Journalism and emboldens prejudice within academia by those whose careers are threatened by the presentation of peer reviewed data which contradicts their very livelihood by Hancock. Terratian ( talk) 16:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)terratian
The only circles we are going around in Ian are the slim references editors on Wikipedia are clinging to in order to keep a journalist defined as a "pseudo" because the peer reviewed work he cites in his popular works challenges the dominant paradigms in the fields he reports on, the conclusions Hancock comes up with are based on the stark peer-reviewed evidence that even a "lay-person" can see implies current theory needs to be re-examined. Hancock is nothing like Erich von Däniken comparing Hancocks work to von Daniken (an alien influence speculator--I won't even touch on recently released government reports on UAF's which absolutely imply non-human intelligence active on our planet) proves the editors have not even read Hancocks journalistic reporting on the history of civilization and the influence the Younger_Dryas potentially had on it, we can use the Clovis_culture#Clovis_First article as an example of dominate Pseudo opinion in academia must be revised when peer reviewed evidence contradicts the theory, otherwise academia and Wikipedia are suffering from Cognitive_dissonance [2] Even the Brian Regal book you cite in an attempt to end discussion on the correct designation of Hancock proves what the 7 million people whom have actually read Hancock's journalist endeavors are so keenly interested in, read on page xii of Regal's Introduction to Pseudoscience where he defines it "reputably" for the reader, "A working definition pseudoscience(from the Greek for false science) is that it is any intellectual or technological pursuit that purports to use scientific methodology or philosophy to prove some temporal or physical reality, but which in fact does not..." Ian, once we can get you to stop practicing pseudo journalism and academia to review new evidence clearly contradicting old dominate theories with your authority to "edit" this page to exclude any reference to "pseudo" anything in regards to Hancocks reputable journalistic review of peer reviewed evidence and what that evidence might imply regarding human civilization prior to the last glacial maximum. Make the edit, or you are absolutely impervious to fact Terratian ( talk) 17:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Terratian
References
There is a consistent issue with people requesting "pseudoscientific theories" or "pseudo-" in general to be removed or changed, which reflects on the article neither conveying clearly enough what the terms mean, nor why Hancock and his work are labeled as such.
1) "Pseudoscientific" seems to imply (to the layperson) that Hancock claims to be a scientists and/or that he is using the methods and principles of science - which he doesn't claim to use - in the wrong way. Pseudo-scholarship or a similar term would be perhaps more accurate and less confusing.
2) There's a lack of explanation why he is labeled as a pseudo-historian/-archaeologists. I think there needs to be a section explaining, with examples, why he is regarded as such (cherry picking of evidence, distorting data, conspiratorial framing, lack of falsifiability, misrepresenting views of historians/archaeologists, arguing against straw-men and outdated ideas, etc.). Hypnôs ( talk) 13:19, 8 July 2021 (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.
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can you look into changing the following statement- "He is known for his pseudoscientific theories"? This makes Mr Hancock seem like an unreliable source when it comes to particular topics. All of the theories Graham discusses have an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting them and he is quite literally re-writing history. He has also sold over 7 million copies of his books worldwide and has archaeologists, quite literally, scratching their heads when it comes to predating ancient civilizations and monuments. JosephHatton101 ( talk) 23:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The evidence presented in Hancocks journalistic books are not "his theories", the evidence presented implies new theories which Hancock reports. The evidence reported in Hancocks works are from well cited, peer reviewed academic research. The trend here of editors to side with academics which are threatened by the data holistically presented by Hancock and applying the term "Pseudo" to that evidence is a fallacy. Hancock is a journalist, as he calls himself. Terratian ( talk) 17:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Terratian
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Graham Hancock also was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast on episode No. 1543. Holystonejack ( talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (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.
Large points in his research have being proven accurate by geologists. The term "pseudoscience" needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.88.124 ( talk) 06:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Irrespective of finding sources to substantiate or refute the term 'pseudoscientific' or 'pseudoscientific theories', we should first recognise that this phrasing is inaccurate in any case. Graham Hancock does not suggest he is a scientist, nor does not purport to use the scientific method per se. The term 'pseudoscientific' is therefore refuting a claim he does not make for himself. Others in the public eye might consider him to be 'pseudoscientific' but this is opinion based on a misunderstanding of the term itself, and is certainly not fact. If you must include the word 'pseudoscientific', then this should at least be referenced as opinion only, i.e. 'according to...'. In the same vein, some (or even many) might hold the opinion that Donald Trump is racist, but I don't see this being reported on his Wikipedia page as a factual statement in the opening paragraph.
The word 'hypotheses' would remove unnecessarily emotive and arguably fairly damaging (to Graham personally) language. It would also be more accurate as per the dictionary definition of 'hypotheses', which is simply: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.". This is all Graham Hancock purports and strives to do.
Now, to reference an example that you asked for from the above Editor. In 2014, Graham Hancock proposed that a human-era cataclysm occurred approx 12800 years ago: https://grahamhancock.com/ancient-cataclysm-hancock/
In 2018, Science Mag acknowledged a human-era cataclysm occurred approx 13000 years ago: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humans
Just one example of a few that are available. One might anticipate there may also be others to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The term 'pseudoscientific' is therefore refuting a claim he does not make for himselfI am sorry but that's simply not what pseudoscientific means. His drivel is pseudoscience and arguing otherwise is doing damage to real science and thereby humanity's hope for survival. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:2DC4:A3DE:F7EE:7C3C ( talk) 21:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You may have said it umpteen times, but that doesn't make your logic any more sound. The phrase 'pseudoscientific theories' specifically is inappropriate, and demonstrates a misuse of language. The word 'hypotheses' fits much better precisely because of the point you raised yourself: Graham does not submit his work to peer-reviewed journals, because only a scientist (or a pseudoscientist) would do this! Graham is not presenting his views as "science" - nor is he trying to attain peer-reviewed approval. Therefore they cannot be 'pseudo science'.
Now, you may disagree with his views, and you might wish to paint them in some unfavourable light - but there should be no room for personal bias on Wikipedia. The scientific veracity (or lack thereof) of Graham's hypotheses is something that only a scientific approach may ultimately discern at some point in the future - as new information about the world comes to light.
When Galileo was persecuted for his views on heliocentrism, he was one of very few who believed that planets revolve around the sun and not vice versa. Similarly, Wikipedia may have the power to infect mass opinion, but there is no moral excuse for the wilful misrepresentation of public figures. Wikipedia has a responsibility to remain dispassionate, sober and accurate in its choice of words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is my point. Galileo was eventually proven to be correct. The Vatican themselves even admitted it... in 1992(!) and apologised! So, whilst there is seemingly some precedent for doggedly holding on to an obvious falsehood, I would certainly hope that this matter can be put right in a more timely fashion.
Interesting. To extend your reference to the BBC's False Balance policy: Do you suppose there is a reason that it is impossible to find anything published by the BBC (generally considered to be the most balanced journalistic organisation in the world) wherein they refer to Graham Hancock as a pseudoscientist? I would suggest it is because they do, in fact, understand the meaning of that word. They understand that it would be unbalanced and too emotive. I am surprised that this is not more obvious. It is a shame we were unable to come to an agreement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, now you're getting it. At least partially. 'Pseudoscience' is quite literally a misnomer. Whilst it would still be a baffling label considering the perfectly reasonable alternative phrasing ('hypotheses' or 'controversial hypotheses') due to the fact it is based on a biased opinion ONLY (yes, it's merely an opinion, and it is not a fact - there are several reputable sources who do not refer to Mr. Hancock with defamatory labels), the term 'Pseudoarchaeology' would at least have some linguistic cohesion about it.
A similar example of opinion-and-not-fact would be to change the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia page about Islam to state: "Islam is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that teaches that there is only one God (Allah), and that Muhammad is a messenger of God. It is known for its cruel and hateful ideology, espousing the idea that homosexuality is sinful and that apostasy should be punishable by death."
Now, would such an edit be wise? Is it OK to include this when we consider that numerous academics (reputable sources) see Islam in this way? Or, do we try to remain impartial? After all, there are many academics who would not agree with this assessment, and as such sources can be found on both sides. This is what makes something "controversial", and that is why the term "controversial" is a much less biased, neutral word.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.74.241 ( talk) 17:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
What you have just stated (that Graham Hancock is referenced as "pseudoscientific" in most sources) is verifiably untrue. Here are the Google search results for proof:
"Graham Hancock" 1,380,000 results. "Graham Hancock" +"inspiring" 430,000 results "Graham Hancock" +"writer" 104,000 results "Graham Hancock" +"journalist" 68,800 results "Graham Hancock" +"pseudo scientific" 4,320 results (of which the Wikipedia defamation is in fact the top result, leading to further reputation damage and proliferation of a false idea, i.e. Google uses Wikipedia content; academics and students use Wikipedia as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
If Wikipedia insists on preserving reputation-damaging misnomers, it can at least have the facts on its side, and provide evidence of such. However many supposedly “reputable sources” that reference Graham Hancock as 'pseudoscientic' or 'pseudoarchaelogical', there are a greater number of equally (or more) reputable sources that do not.
Ok, interesting. So, using the - operator this time around, and following your suggested method for searching, this time I get the following:
"Speculation" would be somewhat accurate - nothing wrong with that. But your suggestion that Graham's work would not be aptly described by the word 'hypotheses' demonstrates an unsophisticated grasp of language. That is perhaps the main point of this whole thing. Words should be used with care. Wikipedia is supposed to be an educational resource, is it not? Not a propagandistic tool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
However many supposedly “reputable sources” that reference Graham Hancock as 'pseudoscientic' or 'pseudoarchaelogical', there are a greater number of equally (or more) reputable sources that do not
So what? This is also true for every other statement in Wikipedia. Taking a random example from the main page: Only a few reliable sources say
Pierre Nkurunziza has died, and the vast majority of reliable sources don't even mention him because their subject is something else. Even of the one who do, most do not say he is dead.
You are not the first who claims that in order to call something a pseudoscience, every single source about that something is needed to say it. It's simply not true: Argument from silence. Still, defenders of this pseudoscience as well as other pseudosciences try to use that fallacy all the time. We call a spade a spade if several reliable sources call it a spade, not just if all of them do. If you had found any reliable sources which said it is not pseudoscience, you would have a point.
Apropos points: Has anybody found the points from Large points in his research have being proven accurate by geologists
yet? --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 10:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The human-era cataclysm he has been talking about for a decade or so (which he dated to approx 12,800 BP) now has recent growing support from numerous mainstream scientists who believe that the cataclysm occurred approx 12,800 BP. Pretty much exactly as per Graham's research. There are other examples, including his dating of Gobekli Tepe, etc. But... alas, I can see I'm getting nowhere here. It's perhaps inevitable that dogmatism creeps in to all large media platforms eventually. I'm afraid you do definitely seem more interested in policing this page than in ensuring its accuracy, which does undermine Wikipedia's mission in my view. This is a phenomenon that Larry Sanger himself has picked up on, and as a result he thinks Wikipedia is broken. I'm inclined to agree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, Dennis McKenna (senior research scientist for the Natural Health Products Research Group at the British Columbia Institute of Technology); and Rick Strassman (clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of New Mexico), to name a couple. They respect Hancock a lot and have worked with him on various occasions, i.e. their collaboration on the book 'DMT Dialogues', wherein there are several examples of dialogue which clearly demonstrate that they take his points very seriously.
I'm afraid the empty rhetoric seems to be on your side, since I have substantiated and referenced everything I have said here. Have you though? Why use such a poor "reliable source" (Brian Regal's 10yr-old book with one review on Amazon, which does not even refer to Hancock as a 'pseudoscientist') for justifying the use of this misnomer? There can be no reasonable excuse for this, however much spaghetti-logic you wrap it in.
To Doug Weller: Sanger is a highly respected individual and as such, by your own logic, his claims against you and other editors should be presented at the top of your respective Wikipedia pages and presented as fact (with footnotes).— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Hob, please explain why the experts I have referenced are irrelevant, with specific examples. Also, try to refrain from rude personal sleights, i.e. “you have no idea how science works” - because I do, actually. J8jweb ( talk) 13:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- one of the areas suggested as “pseudoscientific” is research into altered states of consciousness, as per the text on Graham’s page. The experts I’ve referenced conduct research in precisely this field. You seem not to know who Dennis McKenna is... which says a lot. J8jweb ( talk) 13:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
OK let’s leave it there chaps. For what it’s worth, I’ve quite enjoyed it - some of you did quite well, and even came close to taking a heroic leap through the fires of cognitive dissonance. Not an easy task! I think I’ll score you a 4 out of 10. J8jweb ( talk) 13:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please can you remove the term pseudoscientific. Mr Hancock never claims to be and has in fact said that he is categorically a journalist, a writer and nothing more. Therefore he cannot have pseudoscientific theories. Simply alternative theories on the past to the mainstream.
Many thanks GhjB123 ( talk) 12:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 12:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This isn't Sock puppetry, this is many people rising against the Bias Wikipedia is holding against Graham Hancock. The public consensus is that he is not a pseudoscientist. He has nothing to do with Erich Von Daniken. He performs journalistic investigation, he's not claiming to have or write papers. You and Roxy the dog are wrong and are holding bias. This isn't a neutral approach at all. The fact that this is requested so much is because it's the truth and Wikipedia's article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.173.41 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
the link 'review' is wrong, it is currently https://fee.org/articles/book-review-lords-of-poverty-the-power-prestige-and-corruption-of-the-international-aid-business-by-graham-hancock/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2770:9d0:8a78:73ff:fe8f:899b ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "pseudoscientist" to "Scientific Researcher and Reporter". Hanock is not a scientist and does not claim to be.
The label is misinformative, incorrect and appears to be a blunt attempted smear to discredit him.
His books also contain listed and detailed scientific citation to published science papers and texts carried out by accredited scientists and scientific bodies.
His job is to report their findings and piece things together, much like any other dedicated journalist would. Gettothetruth49 ( talk) 08:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He may have been born in Edinburgh but I think I heard in an interview, he said he was from Bath, England 85.255.233.151 ( talk) 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the pseudoscience from the bio. He has enough facts and proofs for his theories for it to be a historical theory. That is not pseudoscience 2601:985:181:30A0:6448:205F:B8C1:B704 ( talk) 20:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This section mixes personal background information as well as education and journalism over three paragraphs. It should be split into two sections: one with personal information (first and third paragraph), the other with education and journalism (second paragraph).
Additionally, it does not seem necessary to specifically reference the ethnic origin of his spouse. There is no specific relevance of this information as it applies to their relationship. Specifically the sentence referencing his spouse should be something like, "Graham Hancock is married to Santha Faiia, who is a professional photographer specializing in ancient cultures and monuments.[7] They have six children.[9]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpootel ( talk • contribs)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Graham Hancock refutes and regrets the use of the term pseudoscientist to describe him or his work which is used both for the short description and within the body of the entry.
I suggest changing this to alternative scientific theories OR alternative historical theories AND author of alternative historical theories. Rokkmedia ( talk) 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
and, I assume others. I couldn't tell if it was HIS fake version of his own history, or a "parallel universe" he writes about, or what. I think the title for the section needs clarification, and/or the title should defined & explained in the very first sentence of the section. 68.206.248.178 ( talk) 00:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
All history in these time frames is pseudohistory. Sad to see Wikipedia is a place where people now inject bias and won’t accept new information. The quest for new information is always so fought against. Scottseeker ( talk) 01:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Apparently Netflix will release a new documentary series presented by Hancock, Ancient Apocalypse, next month. I expect we'll see significantly more views and edits to this article. – Joe ( talk) 06:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it's time to remove "controversial" from Graham Hancock's page. One theory of his after another were proven right and the fact that he's still considered "controversial" is inappropriate and damaging to the scientific community. Unpin ( talk) 18:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hancock describes himself as an "unconventional thinker who raises controversial questions about humanity's past". However, that quote wasn't supported by the source, and I couldn't find any reliable secondary source verifying it; as it served no purpose in the article, I removed it. -- bonadea contributions talk 18:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
it uses past tense terms to refer to his latest documentary series and none of the claims made inside the article were "pseudo", unless evidence to the contrary can be provided. 2600:8807:8547:4B00:91B3:892C:6516:F3E2 ( talk) 02:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I’ve read the responses. What is a ‘reliable source’? He is very clear about what he knows and what he just thinks. Part of the problem is a ton of current established history was also based on conjecture.
Now Wikipedia one of the first sites anyone will find information on the man will immediately see him labeled a pseudoscientist.
This helps carry on this notion that what is established now is rock solid fact which it is not. Gobleki Tepe changed the whole timeline in 1996 (look it up, it’s on Wikipedia) and still you label this man in a way that harms him and his ideas. Shameful. Scottseeker ( talk) 01:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
What is a ‘reliable source’?Read WP:RS to find out. (Addtion: That page been linked before. You have to click on the link to read it.)
Such are the fingerprints of pseudoarchaeology.
not explicitly stateddoes not matter. The source very clearly regards him as such, and we (meaning everybody here) would have to be either stupid to not see that, or motivated by Hancock fandom to exploit a technical loophole in order to get Hancock off the hook. See also WP:WIKILAWYER.
An article [..]] should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That is how Wikipedia works, and that is why it achieves high quality: by excluding bullshit merchants as sources. If you want to change the NPOV policy, you can try Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, but there is little chance of success. Slightly more hopeful possibility: If a source is dismissed as unreliable, check WP:RSP and start a discussion there. I say slightly because pseudoarchaelogical material typically has such poor quality that even non-archaeologists can spot the rookie mistakes if they know anything about how science works. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 09:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Hancock is put as an example to pseudoarchaeology but not explicitly stated as such in the sources. One step back: Fagan (2006) explicitly refers to Hancock's work as pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology (p. xvi). Fritze (2009) explicitly labels Hancock a pseudohistorian (p. 218). Please do your homework before claiming that this article contains unsourced statements. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Let Graham Hancock edit his own page… Seems like a bully or a fascist would put forth information about somebody and not let that somebody correct their own biography 186.96.22.52 ( talk) 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it’s time to allow for the truth to be told on this website about Graham’s work. A complete disgrace that we call this a platform of accuracy when academic elites gatekeep for their own self interest.
Absolute disgrace. 2603:7000:2402:FC02:3CCE:B896:B1DD:3B1D ( talk) 22:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
You would have sentenced Galileo. To so casually say something like that is the direct antithesis of the scientific method. You are truly lost. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2603:7000:2402:FC02:3CCE:B896:B1DD:3B1D (
talk) 22:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
New evidence is found every year, yet "mainstream scientific view" as it was called by a user above, still doesn't even want to consider Hancock's theories. It's honestly baffling. You would think those "scientists" would have an interest in finding the truth but instead they protect their outdated data as the only acceptable version of history. It's a joke. Jp0202 ( talk) 23:14, 13 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 the outdated claims about pseudoscience regarding footnote 4 and 5. Embarrassing for Wikipedia that this is still kept like this. 79.130.198.120 ( talk) 06:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Hancock: "Very lazy the way that archaeologists react to an alternative point of view. In my case, they almost never get to grips with the material that I put out there in the books. They just say: "Oh Hancock, he's a pseudoscientists, he's a fraud, he's a liar." They never say why I'm a pseudoscientists, why I'm a fraud or why I'm a liar. They just throw those word out, and they go to Wikipedia and that's what you see. And the point about Wikipedia is, that's the first place, when somebody hears my name or hears about my ideas, first place they gonna go have a look is Wikipedia. And immediately they gonna get turned off, and you can't edit my Wikipedia page, they've locked it, and it's controlled by a group of academics."
Hypnôs ( talk) 08:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Fagan gives two typical examples from Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods (1995):, i.e. they are cited to Fagan (2006). The full citation was given immediately above and then again following the second bullet. The citation to Denton 1981 supports the specific statement,
extensive studies of the Antarctic ice sheet by George H. Denton, published in 1981, which showed the ice to be hundreds of thousands of years old, quoted by Fagan. – Joe ( talk) 13:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure I understood what was wanted here, at first I thought it was about the new programme on netflix where Hancock at the start of each episode has a dig at wikipedia! Govvy ( talk) 13:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
every quotation requires an immediately following a citationor
multiple bullet points: each should have a citation? – Joe ( talk) 14:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Graham Hancock has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Graham Hancock's Wikipedia page, the first two words label him as a former journalist but if you click on the link you provide to Graham's webpage, the first word is journalist. He also continues to call himself an investigative journalist. Can this simple correction from former journalist to just journalist be made? It would be more accurate and you are interested in accuracy, correct? Next it seems you are quick to calling his work pseudoscience which has a negative connotation. Couldn't you just say that his ideas are outside mainstream archeology? The editors are protecting a field that insists on explanations that sound goofier that Graham's ideas such as the enormous, perfectly shaped blocks of the Egyptian pyramids were shaped with granite balls and copper chisels and the claim that the stone carvings of bearded men carrying small handbags at archeological sites all over the world is just a coincidence. It's disappointing if Wikipedia is essentially just protecting the status quo. When was the last time wikipedia had a truly controversial page that turned out later to be true? I think it would be inspiring and interesting to always be pushing and challenging the boundaries of knowledge and worry a little less about consensus which by definition inevitably settles to the boring lowest common denominator. Or maybe the biggest chunk of your donations come from the status quo which brings up one last point. You need to change your business model to charging a small monthly fee if it meant you would not be beholden to any particular group. I think I speak for millions when I say I would gladly pay $10 a month to have a more messy exchange of ideas. Sorry about getting off track. Thank you for your time. 64.52.137.20 ( talk) 15:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
See [ https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ys8i4y/i_have_edited_graham_hancocks_wikipedia_page/] Doug Weller talk 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The whole point of having the WP:ISBN go to special sources is so that we don't appear to prefer one commercial source (Google) over other sources (Open Library, Amazon.com, and 19 others). Besides WP:GBOOKS, there is also an RfC on the topic. The usefulness of a direct-to-page link was made an exception to the overall principle that we rely on special sources to provide links in a neutral manner, not preferring one over the other. Skyerise ( talk) 15:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Have people looked at the articles in further reading by him? They may help, particularly [ https://www.hallofmaat.com/meh/antarctic-farce/]. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Now there is a documentary out which lists his theories in easily consumable detail. Might we open this once again for fleshing out what was presented to give some depth and context to the article? 95.145.51.8 ( talk) 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Wiki needs to update this profile-they’re showing their elitism and gate keeping a journalist’s ability to tell story. 2600:100C:B035:9BFD:DD78:1C45:90B3:4C2E ( talk) 03:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)