Talk:Graham Hancock

Articles from the Society for American Archaeology on Hancock

See [1] articles on him. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Can't get this link to work.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't checked it. I'm asking about it. Doug Weller talk 21:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: https://www.saa.org/publications/the-saa-archaeological-record

Then go to The SAA Archaeological Record Table of Contents, click on "Digital Edition" in "Number 5, November Digital Edition."

They make in quite complicated. Or you can download it from:[2]! Doug Weller talk 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The document says of Hancock "His literary record makes him one of the major writers in the genre of pseudoarchaeology." We know how much Graham Hancock dislikes his work being described as pseudoarchaeology. This is a long read and I will have a look at it in more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Earth Changes

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)

I would tend to agree with this suggestion. I feel there should be more referenced on this point, for example, his expanded work on the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. This is a central theme which runs through much of his work, and it is interesting to note that the term 'pseudoscience' does not exist in that particular article. Thisismeandhistory (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

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)

 Not done Amazon.com reviews are never relevant on Wikipedia, and definitely not when it comes to determining the reliability of a source. What is relevant is the fact that the author is a reputable academic. --bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Brian Regal has his own article. We seem to be going round in circles on this again. Hancock's work is not regarded as scientific by mainstream academics because he never submits it for peer review to reputable academic sources. Anyone can say anything they like in a book, as Erich von Däniken proved some years earlier.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 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, 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 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 factTerratian (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Terratian

No. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2020

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.

---

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)

 Not done This is why the page is protected. The "psuedoscientific" description is well-sourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

See the section above. Erich von Däniken sold millions of books, but that does not mean that his theories are true. The amount of books sold does not equate to the amount of academic rigour involved in producing them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

His "journalist" description is more acutely ascribed by unbiased sources, ergo remove the "pseudoscientific" designation as Hancock relies on oeer reviewed science as a source in ALL of his works. Terratian (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)terratian Terratian (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2021 (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

Well, that's just clearly not true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Proposed Deletion

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)

Which points? Source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Younger dryas sudden change theory finally accepted by “mainstream” geologists.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/channeled-scablands

An example of how the toxic hostile culture in “mainstream” academic theory (which Hancock reports on in his books, and sites peer reviewed scientific study on alternative theories) can be overturned, usually taking decades…

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/jacques-cinq-mars-bluefish-caves-scientific-progress-180962410/#A1zGtDKtgySyduU6.99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terratian (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't just dump text at any old place. Indent it and sign it. Otherwise, either somebody (me, in this case. You're welcome) has to clean after you, or nobody understands who said what.

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis does not equal Hancock's "Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, plus all that Noah and Atlantis bullshit". The hypothesis itself goes back to Halley, then cranks like Donnelly and Hancock stuck myths on it. What has been confirmed is Halley's version, not the one with fantasy addtitions all over it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hob, I'm glad being uninformed as to Wikipedias vast ocean of rules doesn't preclude relevant arguments from being included... As to this ongoing "debate" about Hancock's works being automatically given the "pseudoscience" label, let's just turn our attention to the Library of Congress designation of Hancocks works(https://lccn.loc.gov/95006964), hopefully Wikinazis(perhaps we need a new page for obstinate Wikipedia editors?) will remove the ill placed label after seeing how the Library classifies the authors works, LC classification

GN751 .H293 1995

LC Subjects

Lost continents.

Civilization, Ancient.

World maps--Early works to 1800.

Antarctica--Discovery and exploration.

No where do we see the terms psuedoscience, pseudoarcheology, or pseudohistory being applied to these journalistic works. Terratian (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)terratian Terratian (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This will probably come as a surprise to you, but if your reasoning does not convince the opposition, it does not necessarily mean that they are "obstinate" or "Nazis", it can also mean that your reasoning is not as good as you thought. Of course, blaming one's failure to convince others on those others is the standard tactic of people with an extremely limited ability to judge the quality of their own reasoning.

So, you found sources which do not mention those words.

Clap.

Clap.

Clap.

I have got another surprise: Although, as you say, there is a "vast ocean" of Wikipedia rules, none of them says we cannot use a word unless it appears in every single source people can find. If it did exist, all the articles would probably only consist of words like "be", "a", and "the". It is enough that a large proportion of reliable sources come to the same conclusion, and here, they do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2021 (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 himself I 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)

The real problem, as I have said umpteen times, is that Hancock never submits his work to peer reviewed journals. This is a key requirement for acceptance by mainstream academics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 10 June 2020 (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)

But Galileo was correct !! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:01, 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.

Please learn to sign your posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~. Please indent the messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you missed my point above, so I'll restate it for clarity, But Galileo was correct and Hancock is wrong !! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Hypotheses" would be misleading, and whether Hancock self-identifies publicly as a scientist is in fact irrelevant. He proposes theories that lie smack bang in the middle of the area of (e.g.) pseudoarcheology, which is a pseudoscience or fringe science – ergo, the theories are pseudoscientific. He is apparently a fairly high-profile individual, and as such it is extra important that Wikipedia uses neutral and factual descriptions of his work and don't muddy the waters by using words like "hypotheses". --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What is being proposed here is a recipe for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Quote from this policy, taken from the BBC:"When considering 'due impartiality' ... [we are] careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of 'due weight' can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries." The bottom line is that mainstream archaeologists do not believe that the Pyramids or Stonehenge were built by aliens, or by mysterious lost civilisations. People have made millions of dollars writing books that put forward these theories, but they have zero support in the academic world. It's a bit like saying that "two plus two equals five" is alternative mathematics. This is a common technique used to dismiss mainstream theories.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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)

Pseudoarchaeology is probably a more accurate term for Hancock's work. The BBC Horizon documentary in 1999 looked at the Orion correlation theory and argued that it was based on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy where the evidence has been analysed and interpreted to fit a particular viewpoint. As Karl Popper said, "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:03, 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)

Pseudoarchaeology is just a slightly more specific term; note that the second sentence of that article describes it's theories as "pseudoscientific interpretations," which is quite similar to what we already have in this article ("pseudoscientific theories"). I don't see anything controversial about describing Hancocks theory as psuedoscientific, as that's how it's described in most sources; changing it to "Pseudoarchaeological" would do little more than obfuscate the matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:16, 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)

Google results != reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:26, 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.

WP:GOOGLE applies here. The amount of hits for a given phrase is interesting, but does not constitute truth, as a range of factors are involved in why some phrases produce more hits than others.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@J8jweb: If you insist on using Google as an argument, you could at least have the facts on your side. The way to see how many hits there are is to go to the last page of hits and look at the bottom of that page where it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the [x] already displayed", not look at the top of the first page of hits. (As can be seen in WP:GOOGLE the figure displayed on the last page is also not exact, but at least it is less of a wild guess.) I just did the same search you did, with and without breaking up the compound), and:

"Graham Hancock" 151 results without loading the "very similar" entries, 379 results after loading those

"Graham Hancock" "inspiring" 129 results (where at least the first 100 are overwhelmingly hits on his own website or adverts for his books)

"Graham Hancock" "journalist" 138 results

"Graham Hancock" "pseudo scientific" 134 results (and there are no Wikipedia results or Wikipedia mirrors here, since WP uses the compounded form)

"Graham Hancock" "pseudoscience" 122 results

"Graham Hancock" "pseudoscientific" 91 results

The last five searches are all without "very similar" entries, but they are comparable to each other. Google search result lists are still not reliable sources, and so we would not refer to Hancock as a charlatan even though "Graham Hancock" "charlatan" yields 126 hits. --bonadea contributions talk 08:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, interesting. So, using the - operator this time around, and following your suggested method for searching, this time I get the following:

"Graham Hancock" -"pseudoscience" 140 results

"Graham Hancock" "pseudoscience" 118 results

So as we can see, at least in Google, most references do not refer to Graham in the context of pseudoscience. As revealing as this may be, we can put it in further context. Searches for "Brian Regal" (the "reliable source" used on Graham's page) yield the following:

"Brian Regal" 110 results (does this indicate his profile is lower than that of Graham Hancock? Well... yes.)

"Brian Regal" "polemicist" 18 results (polemicist: a person who is known for engaging in controversial debate)

"Brian Regal" "defamation" 52 results (self explanatory)

Furthermore, and more pertinently, if one decides to look at the Amazon listing for Brian Regal's book, one can see it was written *over a decade ago* and therefore cannot be said to be representative - in any way - of a current mainstream view. Furthermore, the book does not actually reference Graham as a "pseudoscientist" at any point; and perhaps most damningly, in the intervening decade the book has accumulated the grand total of just one - yes, ONE - review! (likely from the author himself!). Can anyone in good conscience truly say that this meets the standard for a "reliable source"? Shouldn't the bar be set somewhat higher?

There is, in fact, no reasonable excuse not to use neutral language, i.e. "controversial hypotheses" (as suggested), thereby allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. Presently, Wikipedia is making assumptions about the character of a public figure, and referencing unreliable sources to fit a biased, closed-minded narrative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J8jweb (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The word 'hypothesis' cant be applied to Hancock's work as it doesn't reach that level - 'speculation' is probably the politest term we could apply to what he does. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"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)

Roxy is already using words with care. It is you who uses nonstandard, unsophisticated language. "Hypotheses" need to be more reality-based than Hancock's fantasy stories.

Then why don't you stop using it as a propagandistic tool? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I was the one described as having an "unsophisticated grasp of language" - in this context I find that quite hilarious, to be honest. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 13 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)

Sanger lost any credibility when he went to work with Everpedia which, among other things, allowed some vicious false attacks on Wikipedia editors, including me. Their guidelines and policies, including sourcing requirements, are less strict and they reward editors.[3] But this page is meant to be used to discuss only the article, so let's drop that. Maybe there was a cataclysm at that time, his take on it is pseudoscience. Please learn to WP:INDENT and sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ Doug Weller talk 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Do those "mainstream scientists" have names? Can you give reliable sources of them agreeing with Hancock? (At the moment, it sounds a bit like the Velikovskians claiming he predicted that "Venus is hot".)

Whining about dogmatism will earn you nothing except yawns, since it is an age-old strategy of pseudoscientists, and policing this page is the same as ensuring its accuracy. Less empty rhetorics, more facts. --Hob Gadling (talk)

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)

Why is Albert Einstein regarded as a genius? According to his article "Although initially treated with skepticism from many in the scientific community, Einstein's works gradually came to be recognised as significant advancements." The theory of special relativity was published in Annalen der Physik in September 1905. This is a recognized academic Journal. Hancock's work is never peer reviewed, although he has had ample opportunities to submit it if he wishes. I think we're going round in circles on the use of the word "pseudoscientist", but it doesn't alter the fact that Hancock has chosen to operate outside the mainstream academic sphere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

... and there is no issue in stating as much on his page. But defamatory labels have no place on Wikipedia. J8jweb (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Using the word "defamatory" has a potential problem with no legal threats but I will overlook that. Hancock can never have respect in the mainstream academic community unless, like Albert Einstein, he accepts the rules of the peer reviewed system. The question is how to communicate to the average reader that mainstream academics do not accept theories involving aliens or mysterious lost civilizations, no matter how many books they sell.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I use the word “defamatory” as descriptive only. After all, I am not Hancock and would have no basis (as far as I am aware) for pursuing any legal action at all.

I agree that Hancock operates outside mainstream academic spheres. I also absolutely agree that he needs to do so if he wants their respect, and if he wants the respect of an even wider audience in general.

But I oppose the use of unsubstantiated (as I have shown) non-neutral language in what ought to be a neutral facts-based resource. J8jweb (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The average reader would understand the word “controversial”, and I’d argue that that would be the more grown-up, neutral way to describe Hancock without resorting to personally damaging, controversial-in-their-own-right labels.

Further, there is no issue with presenting the fact that mainstream academics do not accept theories regarding aliens or mysterious lost civilisations. That would be fair and balanced. J8jweb (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A "senior research scientist for the Natural Health Products Research Group" and a psychiatrist may be "scientists", but on the fields Hancock tries to revolutionize, they are ignorant laymen. I should have expected that: of course you have no idea how science works, otherwise you would not be here lobbying for a crank.

You cannot name any "mainstream scientists" who agree with Hancock, except a few completely irrelevant specialists in other fields.

Also, please learn how to indent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 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)

...and yet everything you have said in this thread screams otherwise. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:25, 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)

Some more recent sources.[4], [5], [6], [7] - there are more. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 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)

He's Dennis' Terrances brother !!! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

PS. That's worth at least six out of ten. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

NPOV dispute: Pseudoscientific

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)

Hello @Dani on the Keys:, your concern has been addressed already – please have a look at the archived discussions where are several explanations of why the current phrasing is in fact neutral, as well as the discussions about the term "pseudoscience" currently on this talk page. ("Neutral point of view" does not mean "equal weight to all viewpoints", and Wikipedia is intentionally biased towards reliable, mainstream academic sources. That is a feature and not a bug. See this information.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm worried about WP:BLUDGEON because this thread is only going to lead to a repeat of the things that were said in the thread above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a good point, ianmacm. There are basically two choices, when the same questions are asked over and over by "new" users: either point them to old discussions, which invites sealioning, or ignore and close the threads. Maybe it would be a good idea to add a FAQ template to the top of the talk page – then we could close new sections about the same old topic with a pointer to that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a great danger that wikipedia policies can be used to dismiss legitimate discussion just because the policy "seems to fit". The fact that a discussion has already taken place does not in itself mean that discussion was done in good faith or that the outcome was right, especially where the case isn't being made well enough by the sources or the information in the article. Daniel is not alone in finding this article slanted, I also had that impression and I suspect many others too. It is troubling to see him accused of "pseudoscience" when Hancock has never proposed to be a scientist or an archaeologist, he has never presented his views as anything other than his own opinion. His only suggestion to the scientific community is that they pursue alternative avenues of investigation rather than proceeding with base assumptions that are only hypothetical on their own. While I understand the objective of putting greater priority on more mainstream sources, this approach ignores the potential for those with that level of cachet to abuse their position. I believe that a good test of whether this is the case should be to make comparison between the facts of the individual and the claims of his detractors - in this case it is borne out by the evidence that they are not a match. On that basis I do think this issue is worthy of further discussion. -Badharlick (not logged in) 50.69.168.189 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You'll need some WP:RS reliable sources that support your supposition, but they are in fact, lacking. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is indeed slanted. All of Wikipedia is intentionally slanted toward what independent reliable sources say about a subject. When those sources say a subject's work is pseudoscience, Wikipedia will say their work is pseudoscience.

Can sources which pass the criteria outlined at WP:IRS abuse their position as "reliable" sources? Sure. But that raises two points.

1) Why? As a well-regarded peer-reviewed academic journal, why would you leverage that to attack the fringe theories of Hancock? The reputation was hard-fought and won and you're going to abuse it for some trivial battle of wits with the fringe?

2) When sources change from fact-checking and reliable reporting to something else, the change is typically not a onetime thing. The New York Times doesn't just throw in a few articles about secret cabals of extraterrestrials running the world every now and then along with their serious reporting of real-world politics. If you feel there are sources used here that are not (or are no longer) reliable sources, you are free -- and encouraged -- to challenge them. If you demonstrate that a source does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, the community will support removing in (leaving, of course, the other sources and what they say)

A wholesale attack on the pillars of the project will not get you anywhere on an individual article (as here). If you feel Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are seriously misguided, a better place to approach the issue is at the village pump or on the talk page for the specific policy. That's how the policies were developed in the first place and evolved to their current states. It's also how they will continue to change over time. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

addendum

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)

It does not matter what you consider him to be, or why. It only matters what WP:RS say about him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Seriously problematic methodology - what's the deal?

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)

Wikipedia does not provide the "Truth". Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Did NASA land astronauts on the Moon? Is the Earth spherical? Does a virus cause the flu? We don't know. We do know that independent reliable sources answer all of these questions and we report what they say.

Yes, we limit what sources we use. There are certainly sources that say NASA never landed on the Moon, that it's just part of the story the human-alien hybrids secretly running the world want us to believe. Rather than reporting the maniacal ramblings of the conspiracy theorists, we report what published sources with a recognized history of fact-checking and accuracy say. We call those sources "reliable" and define them at WP:IRS.

Yes, one of the three sources for "pseudo-scientific" is a text definding "pseudo-science". It, along with the other sources, cites Hancock's theories as an example of pseudo-science. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't really reply beyond saying things that have been said before; scroll upwards for many previous discussions about this. If anything, though, I am happier to say that Hancock's work is not accepted by mainstream academics than to get bogged down in endless debates about the use of the word "pseudoscientific".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

OP should look at Hancock's methodology, before criticising ours. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also their own. I have no idea what "you footnote the first one "pseudoscientific" and link it to something completely related to the topic" could refer to. Clarity is the first step to doing science: if you fail at that, you can give up immediately. (Is it possible to forbid the editing of footnotes specifically? I think not.)

And if we accepted every source instead of restricting them according to quality, this site would be one of the worst crap heaps in the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"I have no idea" stop playing the fool, you're not that dense. For the claim that Mr. Hancock is known for his 'pseudoscientific theories', the first citation is the definition of pseudoscience, with no mention of Mr. Hancock. The second citation says nothing about 'pseudoscience', it says he has 'controversial theories'. The third citation is about pseudoarcheology, and Mr. Hancock is not mentioned.

Anyways, another issue is the sentence "An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals." He's not a scientist, he's a writer and journalist. You're requiring a level of scientific standards from someone who isn't a scientist. Why? Should we be applying this standard to all writers and journalists? KRLA18 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 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"?

Next guess: "something completely related to the topic" could mean "something completely unrelated to the topic". But if you mean the first reference, Brian Regal, that is not true: Brian Regal's book does mention Hancock as an example for a pseudoscientist. So maybe you did mean "something completely related to the topic". Which does not make sense either. So, your contribution was just gobbledigook to me.

The currently third source, "Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents The Past and Misleads the Public", does talk about the pseudoarchaeologist Hancock on pages 27-28. You are wrong here too.

In light of the fact that Wikipedia articles change all the time, "the first", "the second" and "the third" are not very useful descriptions. As soon as someone inserts another source, your pointers break. Therefore, sources are usually described by their actual names or, better, by links. And do not claim that someone "plays the fool". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

Graham Hancock also was a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast on episode No. 1543. Holystonejack (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: This is probably true, but it isn't necessary to list all of the appearances exhaustively. The current wording in the article is ok.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree. Terratian (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)terratian Terratian (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• The problem with eating pikelets and butter with Marmite, is that it makes the fur around your mouth all salty. Yum. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

Erase all the uses of pseudoscience, pseudohistory, pseudoarchyolody 2A00:23C6:6A11:9801:C92A:C48A:6F10:B3BA (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a properly formatted request. Even if it were formatted correctly, the answer would be no. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is roughly the ten zillionth edit request along these lines. I'm also worried about possible WP:SOCK here, but there needs to be a consensus regardless.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:49, 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)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on the random unenlightened views of the online mob. Publish your views in a serious medium, and you will have fulfilled the minimum condition for not completely ignoring it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific theories

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)

I disagree with all three of your contentions above. Please read the introduction at the top of this page, and the archives of this page, where your points have all been dismissed thoroughly, multiple times. This page is for improving the article, not debating the meaning of words. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I have read the contentions above and I'm not asserting that the labeling is wrong, but evidently the article is poor at explaining the issue.

Wouldn't you agree that the article would be improved if readers would take away why he is labeled as such, instead of contending that the labeling is wrong? Hypnôs (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

See Argumentum ad populum for why the number of people requesting this wouldn't matter, even if we could be sure they are not the same, small group of motivated individuals.

As for explaining the term: I could not possibly disagree more. It's right there in the article, clearly laid out. As for the claim that he's not "pretending to do science", that's absolute BS. He's literally doing the work of historians and archeologists by using historical and archeological evidence to fuel speculation on claims about history and pre-history. The suggestion that he's not engaging in pseudoarcheology and pseudohistory because he doesn't claim to be a scientist is immaterial: he's doing science, and he's doing it in such an incredibly ignorant and skill-less manner that it dips below "bad science" and into "pseudo science".

The suggestion that he doesn't claim to be using the methods of science is also BS. Methodological naturalism (methodically looking for a natural explanation for observations) is the method of science, and Hancock frequently insists that his theories are both methodical and his conclusions natural.

This is the only response I'm going to give on this. Continued editorializing on this page will be reverted, and disruptive editing will be reported to an administrator. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is wrong because many people disagree, rather that many people requesting a change shows that article doesn't explain the issue sufficiently.

Thanks for the answer on the science point, I agree. Such an explanation is missing in the article, see the most recent edit request that states that Hancock is "a journalist, a writer and nothing more". Since that seems to be a common misconception, the article should address why this isn't the case. Hypnôs (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

See the second para in the lead, and the rest of the article. Note that Hancock fans do a lot of canvassing too. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

It just states that the work hasn't been peer reviewed and published in academic journals, but that's not what makes it pseudo-science per se, rather the things I listed above do (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) 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What specific changes do you suggest making to the article, and what sources do you propose using to support them? Brunton (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Contrasting Hancock's statements in his books with the scientific literature. I'm not sure which specific examples should be picked.

Pseudohistory has a list of criteria to identify pseudo-historic works. Showing how and why the criteria are fulfilled would be informative. Hypnôs (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest Ronald H. Fritze's book Invented Knowledge (2009) as a good source for that purpose. He discusses in great detail the fallacies (to put it mildly) of pseudohistory in general, and also the special case of Hancock. He also illustrates that these guys live in a kind of closed universe, which is quite at odds with their self-proclaimed stance of being "undogmatic". I agree that labelling alone is rather shallow – I myself am guilty of it in having cited Fritze here for the sole purpose of adding the characterizing label pseudohistory, when there is much more to get from that book to explain the modus operandi of Hancock (and many other pseudohistorians). This is for the benefit of our readers, as pointed out by Hypnôs, and not in the least catering to the canvassed SPAs which have recently flooded this discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I do hope that Hypnos sees your comment as an example to emulate in the future. I've just purchased the book on Kindle and started reading. I'll look into covering some of Fritze's commentary in the article. The article seems quite clear to me, but the addition of this specific material explaining Hancock's failings doesn't seem likely to hurt the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The Title "Pseudo-History" is meaningless to me

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)

Well then, you should read Pseudohistory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

That heading was introduced by Hypnôs earlier this month, along with a series of additions of unsourced material and other idiosyncratic changes to the structure. I've restored the version as of 4 July, which uses the usual structure and section headings. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request - the link to Review of Lords of Poverty at FEE

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)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

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)

•  Not done: Personally I am not a great fan of describing Hancock as a pseudoscientist, but the real problems are a) he never submits his work to mainstream academic journals and b) if he did, the theories would not be accepted (see the Horizon documentary).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Gettothetruth49: We write articles based on what has been published in reliable sources and there are multiple sources, cited in the article, that describe Hancock's work as pseudoscientific. There are no reliable sources that describe him as a "Scientific Researcher and Reporter". This has been discussed many times before and is in fact the primary reason that this is page is protected from edits by unregistered or new editors.

By the way, if you really think that is what Hancock does, I'm afraid you've been misled. – Joe (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

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)