Talk:Graham Hancock: Difference between revisions
Tag: Reverted |
Reverted good faith edits by 24.156.63.244 (talk): Discussed numerous times previously, see FAQ at top of page + archives |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
== False information provided == |
== False information provided == |
||
Hes a journalist not a scientist or archeologist [[Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090|2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090]] ([[User talk:2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090|talk]]) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Where do we say he is? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
:Where do we say he is? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
Graham Hancock is called a pseudoarchaeologist mostly by mainstream academics who disagree with his theories. All archaeological reports express theories crafted from raw discoveries and data, and many accepted theories are based upon fewer facts than Hancock provides in his books and films. I would like to edit this Wikipedia page to make this clear but I can't find the "edit" option. I have a degree in anthropology and my experience shows researchers often actively try to discredit anyone who disagrees with their theories. None of this can be proven short of building a time machine and traveling back to the past and Hancock's theories make as much sense as others I've studies and make more sense than many. |
|||
== Disingenuous == |
== Disingenuous == |
Revision as of 07:40, 25 June 2024
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days ![]() |
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:
|
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. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
claims of racism with no evidence?
under the “pseudoarcheology” section it is claimed that hancock is linked to racism and white supremacy, the evidence of which are quotes from people who actively oppose hancock. Why would on a scientific description of a persons career include opinions instead of fact, especially opinions that demean and discredit the career? 216.175.38.109 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia is based primarily on reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is false as the page currently written on Graham Hancock is not based on any reliable source as all sources cited here are of biased opinion with no supporting evidence thus not a reliable source even if its written by self proclaimed professionals this interpretation of Grahams work is biased and a insult to Wikipedia and its integrity to uphold the most accurate information 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia, "reliable" is not defined as "agrees with the opinion of 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090". Instead, it is defined as described in WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is false as the page currently written on Graham Hancock is not based on any reliable source as all sources cited here are of biased opinion with no supporting evidence thus not a reliable source even if its written by self proclaimed professionals this interpretation of Grahams work is biased and a insult to Wikipedia and its integrity to uphold the most accurate information 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- They seem to be attributed, so they are statements of opinion, not of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
False information provided
Hes a journalist not a scientist or archeologist 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Where do we say he is? Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Disingenuous
It's probably not worth adding, but in GH's "debate" with Flint Dibble on Rogan's show, he stated that this Wik article on him was written by one archaeologist and that editing it was blocked. I just checked: its editing is restricted but not blocked, per Wik procedure on controversial living individuals. And there is a host of (often "warring") editors working on this site. 136.36.180.215 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. I watched the interview and was surprised by the claim. If something is contested, a discussion can be opened. The majority of objections went towards the claims of using "racist" sources and not being able to edit that out of Wikipeida (as far as I can remember). I can even see this reddit post [2]. I've personally never been involved in this article. I've just read what the article says, and I can attest it just reports what SAA published. Bilseric (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- As his debate with Flint showed time and time again, Hancock isn't afraid to make claims that anyone can easily disprove: more than 50 people have collaborated on this article. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think he was referring to the parts that bother him, not the whole article. But at least with reporting who said what, there should be no complaints towards Wiki. Things were said and those are just reported here. Bilseric (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- C-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Scotland articles
- Low-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages