Talk:Graham Hancock

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Graham Hancock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 14 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why does the article say that Hancock's ideas are pseudoscientific?

A1: Hancock has written numerous books and has made television documentaries, but does not submit his work for peer review in mainstream academic journals. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources and do not present theories as valid if they are not supported by experts in the relevant field. When Hancock's work was examined by mainstream archaeologists for the BBC's Horizon documentary series in 1999, academics were critical of aspects of his work, and after a complaint by Hancock and Robert Bauval, the Broadcasting Standards Commission found only one point of unfairness in the documentary.[1] Hancock has ample opportunities to promote his work through his own channels, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Unless his work undergoes peer review and is accepted in the academic community, it cannot be presented as having equal validity to work that has undergone peer review.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950)[1] is a British writer who promotes a further investigation into an ancient civilization. [4] Hancock proposes that a civilization existed during the last Ice Age possessing technology, in regards to their knowledge of astronomy, magalithic stone work, geography and sea travel. Most of this civilizations progress was destroyed following comet impacts around 12,900 years ago, at the onset of the Younger Dryas. He speculates that survivors of this cataclysm passed on their knowledge to primitive hunter-gatherers around the world, giving rise to all the earliest known civilizations 2001:56A:7113:9F00:256B:54B7:B584:F392 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See all the talk page comments already about this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My request is simple.....this page is not objective.. Graham Hancock is a journalist..the description of him as a pseudoscientist begins the article with an overt bias....whatever he believes or advocates should be described before critiques are ordered below in a criticisms section...to begin by discrediting him renders the article 'pseudoencyclopedic' The page is more polemic than description or evaluation there is a dangerous misuse of narratives attempting to connect Mr Hancock with racism while there is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion. Whoever wrote this page did not do so in the spirit of the philosophy of science. I do not want to edit this page personally I want someone to ammend it accordingly. 81.132.255.64 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The "pseudoscientific" adjective on the opening sentence references two sources (the inline citations "^[2]^[3]") and reflects the Pseudoarchaeology section, which has even more sources. ObserveOwl 🎄 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I don't believe that Graham Handcock is correct. However, neither do I see archaeology as omniscient. The tone of this article is still too severe. It is not balanced, being structured much as its author alleges and rightly identifies, much of Mr Hancock's work to be. I mean citation sixteen? What kind of actual research has been done to establish changes in the perspectives of the Joe Rogan audience after the Hanncock Dibble interview? Just because and academic said that this occurred in their opinion does not mean it did. Even if Mr Hancock is perhaps misguided, it is doubtful that his motives are anything but honest and true. Are there any academics who support his work to any degree? In the interest of balance, even if they are a minority and even perhaps obscure? Mr Hancock never actually claims to have found anything! Rather he seems interested in pushing back the archaeological clock, ever deepening the void in which his mysterious lost civilisation is purported to lie; the material he presents is interesting and our realisation of the antiquity of the human species is growing. Agriculture does begin 12000 years ago even if its got nothing to do with seafaring shamen.

Mr Hancock's impact is likely to have introduced many people to discoveries in archaeology, which would have remained at the margins of popular interest.

Most viewers or readers will recognise the often self confessed limitations of Mr Hanncocks work. A rare bigot may see the work as a means of establishing rhetoric such as those prevalent in Nazi or imperial archaeology but those individuals will find their justifications wherever they can.

This article is not to me a proper encyclopedia entry; it has bitter overtones and seems almost to villianise Mr Hancock.

What's there to be scared of? It must be a fear or perhaps a sense of anger that drives the writing of a page like this!

Lastly, Mr Hancock and Mr Dibble seemed to get on quite well after some personal tensions, which needed working out. I can away endeared to both men and grateful for all the information that they shared.

And I think that would be the response of most people...while you cite their long discussion as powerful evidence of Mr Hancock's inaccuracy your page lacks its nuance entirely and has none of the humanity... Please... will you sort this out for everyone?

Regards Andrew 81.132.255.64 (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]