Talk:Graham Hancock

Proposed Deletion

This is a stub on a non-notable bio attached to a reiteration of the information from Orion Correlation Theory.Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, have removed prod, don't think it is the appropriate move here, the guy is well known, at least in his niche, and had a series commissioned by the BBC earlier this decade, perhaps the article simply needs some better references, there are many less notables worthy of deletion ahead of this. Measles (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

He is a New York Times Best Selling author -Fingerprints of the Gods- which has been translated into 28 languages. He is the real deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:C041:F300:5D29:A77F:2444:7ABE (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

sorry, not BBC, Channel 4, one of the main UK channels, but he appeared on a BBC documentary about the Great Pyramid, and was criticized in another popular BBC show, Horizon; which there was some fuss about. Measles (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be honest, I've never heard of the guy. What I can see is an un-sourced article on yet another Ancient Astronauts guy. This needs references to confirm notability. I'll hold off for a few days before I put up an AfD in order to give editors who are familliar with the material a chance to get some valid references up but if that can't happen than this should either be deleted or, at best, merged into Orion Correlation Theory. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, someone who cares enough about the subject should set about improving it asap, but maybe get some additional input before deleting? Measles (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it upon myself to clean up the Ancient Astronauts topics which seem to have sprawled into a lot of not-necessarily-notable articles that need deleting, merging, etc. However I'm mostly approaching this from the perspective of examining which articles present some evidence of notability. If a few notable topics get caught in the net as I do it I figure I'm not being overly hasty with my deletes and somebody will come along and revert my boldness; at which point discussion ensues. :D Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, my general feeling is that Hancock is notable in the field of pseudoarchaeology; a TV series and a few books published via "reputable" sources seems to confirm this, also, surprisingly, the article has been around almost 9 years!!. I think I'll have to go keep on this one. Measles (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just fyi, the orion correlation theory article was created by a copy/paste of text that was originally written for this graham hancock article, hence the overlap. I suppose now that OCT has its own article, coverage of it in this one should be cut down, though probably not eliminated altogether. OCT is one of the speculative areas hancock is noted for indulging in, his role in it deserves some mention in his article. But it is just one among a number of fanciful ideas he's known for and has written about, so merging hancock into OCT would not be appte, IMO. And I don't think a prod or AfD would fly, he's a big enough name in the 'alternative' archaeology and mythistory circuit to be notable, his publs. are often cross-cited by fellow enthusiasts in that crowd, there are even rebuttals of his stuff by more mainstream sources.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I keep saying this, if he is notable put in some refs. Reverting edits deleting unreferenced material and saying "it is easily referenced" is not sufficient.Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clearly undue weight in the case of OCT coverage here, needs reduction. Measles (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

{Undent} Much better, thank you.Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I came to this issue by chance, but I am now seeing biased editorial behavior, OCT coverage here seems to infringe WP:UNDUE. I can understand that some editors are irked by pseudoscience, just not sure this is the right way to deal with it. Measles (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean, pls? Most of the OCT text had been taken out. What used to be here, and what remains, wasn't written to give undue prominence to his claims on the OCT (nor to overstate his critics' arguments). It's more that editors haven't yet been that bothered or motivated to detail other aspects of his writings and speculative claims, than any intentional focus on OCT (for or against). Or is it something else that concerns you...?--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NM, wrong page.Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

not concerned specifically with this article, simply stating what I see in the editing style. The deletion proposal was unwarranted, that's what brought me to the page. Measles (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

actually, I should have been more specific when raising the weighting concern - in relation to OCT - the issue was more specifically to do with the Horizon controversy section, which is essentially an adjunct of the OCT theory item, it appears to have undue prominence. Measles (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hancock specialises in "unscientific" theories. I feel that this statement is inaccurate and slanderous. Marty Ponderosa (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Slanders are spoken statements, you mean libelous. If it is, why hasn't he sued the source, Brian Regal? Doug Weller talk 19:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

TBH, I could not recommend that anyone enriched the legal profession by spinning the roulette wheel of a libel action. Hancock did make a formal complaint over the BBC Horizon documentary about his work, and the resulting investigation found largely in the BBC's favour.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an extremely biased pov displayed towards accomplishing an unprofessional attack. This is not an unbiased article. This is a biased article with the bias on Science Uber Alles. I know it is shocking to many, but Science is a) a methodology and not a world view b) not the only thing that matters and c) not (even though many would believe it is so) an absolute consensus.

Hancock is a journalist and a novel writer. The article should be written from the point of view of journalism and novel writing, as well as fringe ideas. Yes, it is appropriate to point out clearly that he is anti-science in many ways and that his works have factual errors, but it is not appropriate to have a hatchet-piece against someone because they do not express the dogmatically scientific views which many people are comfortable with.

I am sincerely disappointed that Wikipedia has such sloppy ethics and considerations. Feel free to delete it so I may create a more fair article. Not denying or avoiding the scientific consensus or factual errors in his work at all, but not focusing on this. He is not a science writer but is being held to these standards. Think how silly it would be to have an article bashing George Washington as an awful cook, or a French-language teacher for having horrible accounting skills - one would wonder, why is this so biased towards accounting?

Plutophane (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(Please note that the above post was made by Plutophone at 18:06, 20 October 2017 by Plutophane - not as dated above)Roxy the dog. bark 17:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's the edit in question. Moving it from the top of this section to the bottom, which is where it belongs. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if your complaint about the article is well founded, Plutophane, nobody else will delete it in order that you can write a replacement. This explains how you may request the deletion of an article. Note that wanting to replace an article with something better is not a valid reason for such a request. You may wish to join the discussion further down this talk page. (If you do so, sign your comment by hitting the "~" key four times in a row.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been attempting to get the administrators to revisit some of the aspects of Graham’s page for awhile - without much luck might I add! It is easy to understand why the academic community do not consider wiki a source of reference when producing notable work of any kind. (Deuterium01 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC))

Let me guess: they do not use it as a source it because it reflects the academic consensus instead of your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Methodology

I would like to propose a new section for the main page with the title "Criticism of Methodology." Perhaps this might be a useful section to vet the sources from various disciplines critical of Graham Hancock. For example, I am very interested in his notions about a factual origin for the various flood myths throughout the ancient world... but his methodology seems to get in the way of parsing out facts from opinions, reasonable sources from spurious reasoning. I've noticed how often he uses the straw man phrase "orthodox science." CarlosRayGarcia (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Carlos

Generally we don't have a "criticism" section for authors or researchers whose work has been met with overwhelming negative response. In this case we just need to describe the response to Graham Hancock's work and not attempt to compartmentalise it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"Orthodox science" is a straw man phrase? Doesn't it just mean "current scientific orthodoxy"? What is straw man about that? 92.232.232.169 (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes in the article

(transferred here from MelanieN's talk page)

Hello,

I believe you are the administrator for the Graham Hancock Wikipedia page?

The page is locked to edit and I have a few changes I would like to be made as I feel some parts of the article misrepresent the work conducted by Mr Hancock et al.

I reference you to the first paragraph 'Hancock specialises in unscientific theories[1] involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past.'

I agree with all but one word here "unscientific", now having read many many of Mr Hancock's publications, the grouping this word implies is that the entire plethora of his work is unscientifically based. Which is simply not true. The cited sentence claiming the other is referenced out of context here as it refers to only parts of Mr Hancock's work.

I believe a suitable replacement should simply be...

Hancock specialises in ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past.

Nothing more than this is required; the reader of his individual works will see the cited references to academic reports, books and research papers Graham uses to back up claims in his factual publications.

As the initial paragraph on this page is, I'm sure, just as much as an overview as an introduction, I am not required to repeat these here they are readily available in all his books and also I believe on his website (quite a colossal amount of academic reference materials might I add!)

Secondly, the sentence 'An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals' should be replaced or completely removed. It is inaccurate and dare I say completely and utterly wrong.

First off to be as bold as to characterise Mr Hancock et al work as pseudoarchaeology is to admit to having his work peer reviewed!!

So my question here is how else could this title be attributed were it not for his work coming under peer review!?

Additionally to support this statement when proceeding to the pseudoarcheaology page we find absolute proof of peer review, not only a nice top of the page shot of Graham Hancock but we also have the following description of pseudoarcheaology:

'Academic archaeologists have heavily criticised pseudoarchaeology, with one of the most vocal critics, John R. Cole, characterising it as relying on "sensationalism, misuse of logic and evidence, misunderstanding of scientific method, and internal contradictions in their arguments.'

This is as you can see is a total misrepresentation and clearly biased opinion of the entire works of Mr Hancock et al.

Third and finally, 'Canadian author Heather Pringle has placed Graham Hancock within a particular pseudo-intellectual tradition going back at least to Heinrich Himmler's infamous research institute, the Ahnenerbe. She specifically links Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods to the work of Nazi archaeologist Edmund Kiss, a man described by mainstream scientists of the time as a "complete idiot"

Found quite rightly under the criticism heading, this paragraph is horrific aim at prejudice, unrelated and it's use within this page that also!

Drawing connections to the works of the Nazi's and comparing them to the works of Graham Hancock et al is unethical, dumbfounded and down right shameful!!

It is disrespectful not only to, as mentioned Graham Hancock et al, but also the Jewish community; are you really to tell me they have suffered the same plight through modern pseudoarcheaology as they did the holocaust??

Admittedly criticism is needed to ensure accuracy and balance in any review of a person or topic, however when we examine Heather Pringle's page we see no counter arguments or critiques of any kind. In actual fact we see very little written about her at all.

The picture painted described by the writers of the Graham Hancock page is one of an unreliable, unscientific idiot.

The gross misrepresentation in this article discredits not only the work of Graham Hancock and his colleagues but also the academics that he references and additionally the institutions that qualified them in their field.

I implore you to review and alter the page to offer a more accurate, ethical and unbiased depiction of Mr Hancock and his work.

--Deuterium01 (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Deuterium01. Yes, I am the administrator who applied protection to that page. But I have nothing to do with the content. If you want to propose changes to the article, you should do it at the article's talk page: Talk:Graham Hancock. Other editors will reply, and if they agree with your edits they will add them to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, we will not be implementing any of these changes. Those reliable sources which are used in this article support the current text, and do not support your proposed changes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the article's talk page. 92.232.232.169 (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply however not wishing to engage in a battle over the reliability of sources, I think my point has been missed,

firstly my request for the removable of the the word unscientific - my issue is not with the view of the cited article from Brian Regal or the reliability of the source, more with the inclusion of it as current text at all and especially as a misleading initial paragraph to describe Hancock's work as unscientific in its entirety.

Surely this would fit more at home under the criticism heading?

Can you cite any reliable source that proves that the entire of Hancock's work is completely and entirely unscientific as the paragraph implies?

Additionally referring again to my second point regarding lack of peer review see below the definition of peer review : peer review is the evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

This in turn directly contradicts the description that Hancocks work is unscientific, as to be labelled unscientific is to have ultimately been subject to peer review.

To put it clearly you cannot identify something or someone to be unscientific whilst simultaneously stating the same person/topic has not been subject to peer review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuterium01 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hancock's work is classic pseudoarchaeology. There is a big difference between writing books that are designed to sell, and submitting work to peer reviewed journals. As with Erich von Däniken, no mainstream academic supports Hancock's theories. It would be interesting to know if Hancock has ever submitted his works to a peer reviewed journal, but even if he has not, there is enough response from the academic community to make clear that his theories are not accepted. The dictionary definition of "unscientific" here conforms to the mainstream academic view of Hancock's work.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again for the reply,

Are you categorically stating that none of Hancocks work is based on fact or at least drawn from legitimate academic sources as the paragraph implies and thereby is misleading?

Again we cannot escape the fact that the paragraph stating Hancock is unscientific and the following paragraph stating his work has not been peer reviewed clearly contradict the other?

Referring to your own answer the dictionary definition describes scientific and it's antonym unscientific as being 'based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science'.

To attribute the unscientific label to something is to admit that the work has come under review (dare I say a peer review) to determine whether the methods and principles of science are adhered to and thus the term scientific/unscientific correctly applied.

Your statement Hancocks work is classic pseudoarcheaology is something I am not in dispute with, the label in which we define and categorise works is of no interest to me -

my argument is simply the implication that the entire works of Graham Hancock et al are completely unscientific as the paragraph states is misleading and a misrepresentation of the legitimate work that has been referenced to in his various publications.

However I would like to find some common ground and would like to suggest a compromise perhaps the following edit would suffice:

Hancocks work is considered unscientific by mainstream academics however none of his work has been subject to peer review or published in any academic journals.

His areas of interest include ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuterium01 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's all very well, but have you got any policy based justification for your change, because there is no way anything you have said justifies what you want. Roxy the dog. bark 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between "not having been peer reviewed" and "being unscientific", so "however" would not make sense there. --bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying someone specialises in pseudoarchaeology in no way suggests his work has been peer reviewed. I can't understand your logic here. His peers aren't archaeologists because he isn't an archaeologist. The same thing applies to your argument about unscientific. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Deuterium01:Thank you for your reply however not wishing to engage in a battle over the reliability of sources, I think my point has been missed, If you think discussing the reliability of sources is missing the point, you have no business on wikipedia. We never use one editors personal line of reasoning to change well-sourced material. Please read our policies and guidelines before editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies and apologies for my slow reply I have had a busy weekend..

firstly in response, see link below to an interview with archaeologist Donald Holly in Forbes. What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods

www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/09/03/what-archaeologists-really-think-about-ancient-aliens-lost-colonies-and-fingerprints-of-the-gods/amp/

"The article starts out with two reviews... First up, Graham Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth’s Lost Civilization, reviewed by Ken Feder, an archaeologist famous for his anti-pseudoarchaeology book Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology."

Obviously this justification is a review (of some sort)... by a peer (of some sort). Admittedly, this raises the question of peer categorisation and also peer review characterisation, however I have discussed these further below.

Just to note the compromised changes I propose (revised below) now clarify the type of peer review and would also not require you to change the citation [1] as it supports the statement:

Hancock's work is considered unscientific by mainstream academics. [1] Subsequently his work has never been subject to scholarly peer review or published in any academic journals.

His areas of interest include ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past.

@bonadea In reference to this I reviewed my proposed change and modified accordingly (see above).

@Doug Weller I believe the line is simply "Hancock specialises in unscientific theories.." I refer you to my previous reply concerning the attribution of the word 'unscientific' as well as the term 'not being peer reviewed' simply: the definition of 'unscientific' is to not be consistent with the methods or principles of science, which logically could only be determined through experiments, study and peer review of his theories and is therefore misleading.

However an additional argument is simply; the citation [1] used to describe Hancock as specialising in unscientific theories is indeed itself from an academic publication! Therefore pertains to be peer reviewed.

Continuing from above, your comment Hancocks peers are not archaeologists I agree with.

Unfortunately it provides evidence to the notion that a peer review of his work could not be undertaken by an archaeologist at all, only a pseudoarcheaologist.

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants I'm afraid you may have been victim to a part loaded page you have quoted only some of my statement, the reply to this is actually in the proceeding paragraph, allow me to reiterate:

"firstly my request for the removable of the the word unscientific - my issue is not with the view of the cited article from Brian Regal or the reliability of the source, more with the inclusion of it as current text at all and especially as a misleading initial paragraph to describe Hancock's work as unscientific in its entirety."

Now, I wholeheartedly agree and would no doubt participate in a Talk on the reliability of sources within this article, however, the title of this section is 'proposed changes in the article', I suggest starting a new section for the other.

Your second point however is quite right I have read wikipedia's policies and guidelines and refer you to the following statement found under Content bullet point 6, content should:

• Not contradict each other. The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A".

See also link to WK pseudoarchaeology page and quoting

'noting how in the academic archaeological community, "New evidence or arguments have to be thoroughly scrutinised to secure their validity ... and longstanding, well-entrenched positions will take considerable effort and particularly compelling data to overturn." Fagan noted that pseudoarchaeological theories simply do not have sufficient evidence to back them up and allow them to be accepted by professional archaeologists.[24]'

As I feel the eminent circular motion of our discussion, I reiterate my compromised and revised proposed change in the hope we can finally find some common ground:

Hancock's work is considered unscientific by mainstream academics. [1] Subsequently his work has never been subject to scholarly peer review or published in any academic journals.

His areas of interest include ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuterium01 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The article's statement that "Hancock specialises in unscientific theories involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past" is properly sourced. Any theory that "is considered unscientific by mainstream academics", is by definition unscientific. That some of Hancock's sources might be scientific sources does not change the fact that the theories Hancock developed from the sources are unscientific. Your attempts to claim Hancock's work is peer reviewed because academics have given negative reviews of Hancock's books, shows you do not know what "peer reviewed" means. Your statement that "to characterise Mr Hancock et al work as pseudoarchaeology is to admit to having his work peer reviewed!!" is merely your opinion, with neither sources nor logic supporting that opinion. Edward321 (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Edward, but I don't think the definition of scholarly peer review is open to opinion. It is a process by which material is reviewed by renowned experts before it is published (see Scholarly peer review) so that the author may make corrections and improvements to the material. If Hancock can submit a work to a reputable scholarly outlet and have it reviewed by researchers before it is published, and if the reviewers accept and publish the new version, then one will be entitled to say that Hancock's work has been peer-reviewed. A review on a book that has already been published is not peer review. (It would obviously be disturbing if archaeologists were calling Hancock a pseudo-archaeologist without having read his work.) Nicolas Perrault (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In hindsight and after further reading, I admit to have been wrong about the nature of peer review through academic journals etc and agree his work has not been subjected to the usual channels of academia.

I still raise the disingenuous nature of the page. I read the Brian regal book regarding Hancock. It doesn't state 'Hancock specialises in unscientific theories' anywhere in the book. He scarcely mentions him, mainly grouping Hancock together with others such as Ignatius donnelly and Zacharia Sitchin.

It does state 'he has no training in science or archaeology' and later 'Immanuel Velikovsky Worlds in Collision helped pave the way for later neocatastrophist, antiscience and archaeology writers like Zacharia Sitchin and his The 12th Planet (1976) and Graham Hancock Fingerprints of the gods (1995).

This book is a poor source for referencing Hancock's work as a whole and categorising him a 'specialist in unscientific theories'. In addition it was published in 2009 and Hancock has now had a further book out Magicians of the gods (2015) which is not referenced at all.

@Deuterium01: First off, you need to sign your comments on talk pages, by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of it. This is a policy, and not a suggestion.

Second, as has already been explained to you multiple times; the content in the article is well-sourced. Your complaints about the source aren't gaining you any traction, because there's nothing definite about them. You haven't raised a single, concrete objection. Nor are you likely to, because of the root problem with your argument: Our sources are correct. Hancock posits incredibly unscientific theories in his writings. There is no hint of methodological naturalism -the process underlying all of science- to his methods. He simply makes stuff up, then goes looking for other authors and evidence to support his notions. That's the very definition of unscientific. I'm sorry to say it, but the changes you are proposing are never going to be made, because they're simply not true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The wording can be debated, but the basic outlook is the same. Mainstream academics do not accept Hancock's theories, and he does not submit his works to recognised academic journals.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants is spot on; Hancock simply makes stuff up, then goes looking for other authors and evidence to support his notions. I'd suggest that Deuterium01's understanding of scientific methodology is probably lacking, but perhaps the word 'unscientific' does have the potential to trip up a lot of readers. It may be a good idea to change the wording a little and add a link. Something like, "Hancock specialises in pseudoscience involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past." (provided that 'unscientific' and 'pseudoscientific' are acceptable synonyms in this context). nagualdesign 20:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. The sources generally refer to his work as "pseudo-archeology". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the first source is titled Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia, and the Pseudoscience article fits in well with that. After posting that comment I noticed a small issue though. To say that Hancock specialises in pseudoscience, or pseudoscientific theories, may imply that he himself believes them to be pseudoscience, in the same way that James Randi might be said to specialize in pseudoscience. Having thought about it, I think the original wording was probably more accurate and less likely to confuse. Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but I'd like to change my suggestion to, "Hancock specialises in unscientific theories involving ancient civilisations..." (ie, keep the wording and just add a link.) In fact, I'm going to make the edit now, since this is hardly controversial. nagualdesign 01:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion and edit, nagualdesign. Jim1138 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't get the leading, where in Graham Hancock's writing is he claiming to be a scientist? Where are his writings appearing as science? Graham Hancock is a journalist and largely draws on the work of other people, including bone fide archaelogists. This word pseudoscience is a sketpic buzz word, and is perjorative. It doesn't mean so much to the general public. Once again, please prove that Graham Hancock using scientific language or is pretending to be a scientist. This word is completely inappropriate to use in the lead. "pseudoscientific theories" is an oxymoron, best to just use the word theories rather than try and force buzz words onto the general public which actually do not mean anything, but appear to try and discredit Graham Hancock Probrooks (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Several references used in the article describe his work as "pseudoarchaeology". Archaeology is a science, pseudoarchaeology is a pseudoscience. I wouldn't describe pseudoarchaeology, pseudoscience or pseudoscientific as "buzz words" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are they pejoratives; they are factual descriptions. And pseudoscientific theories is not an oxymoron. Hancock does indeed draw on the work of other people, including bone fide archaeologists, but he draws his own pseudoscientific conclusions. nagualdesign 20:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Interview in Eluxe Magazine

i haven’t found a link to it yet, but see this. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The interview is here. I recognised the photo of Hancock straight away, because it's the edited one I did back in August. It is indeed an easy ride for Mr Hancock in the text of the interview.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

An Archaeologist's review of Fingerprint of the Gods in Antiquity Magazine

See [1]. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

Skladany21 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

I do not think Heather Pringle's description of Hancock's inferences relating to ancient monuments is accurate. He knows the difference between fact and things which cannot be proven. His assumptions deserve a fair analyzation. Having a different opinion is not grounds for saying someone is not to be respected. His opinions are logical. If someone has a reasonable argument for why he cannot see things the way he does that is okay, but it being unaccepted by mainstream scientists is not enough. Drreichaskins (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The comparison by Heather Pringle in the article creates a risk of Godwin's law, although there is no suggestion that Hancock is a Nazi. The Nazis were big fans of pseudoarchaeology and manipulated it to support Nazi theories. Hancock's books have sold in large numbers but are not accepted by mainstream academics. WP:FRINGE applies here, and it says "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think the paragraph about Heather Pringle should be omitted. It is a slur by association, clearly implying that Hancock is a Nazi-sympathiser and an idiot. As such it is totally unworthy of what should be expected in an unbiased, factual encyclopaedia article. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the NAZI comparison is unjustified and looks like an attempt to smear Hancock. He is not generally considered a NAZI and just because one writer, who specializes in NAZIs, makes the comparison does not make it so. Darmot and gilad (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As [User:ianmacm|]] said, this edit did not suggest he was a Nazi. Even if he did like the work of a Nazi archaeologist (and she doesn't say he does), that would not make him a Nazi. In fact, the 'Nazi' bit about Edmund Kiss is really irrelevant and as I can't preview the source she may never had mentioned it. There's no evidence that he shared their ideology and he was excused from the Nuremberg trials as he was "only an archaeologist". What is clear is that his views on archaeology and Hancock's weren't that dissimilar. The only policy reason to remove it is the one given by ianmacm. If other sources said the same thing, we'd include it. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing of the paragraph is unfortunate, I think. Editing it to remove the "infamous", the dubious identification of Kiss as a Nazi, as well as the "idiot" quote, would help. --bonadea contributions talk 06:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought a long time ago that this could be removed without any great loss. It is unfair on Hancock to drag in the Nazis as his work has nothing to do with Nazi pseudoarchaeology, any more than Erich von Däniken's does. It also gives undue weight to a quote by Heather Pringle. It misses the point to imply that Hancock's work has anything to do with Nazi pseudoarchaeology because it doesn't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the quote absolutely should go, as should some other POV phrasing. --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with ianmac and Doug Weller and Darmot and gilad and Drreichaskins. It seems to me that there is a majority here for deleting it. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hancock's middle name

This has been given as Bruce, but the source here says "Hancock, Graham B. Class 1 St. Cuthbert's" (on the left hand column of page 14) which doesn't confirm it. The article can live without his middle name unless it is clearly given in a secondary source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"Unconventional theories"

Re this edit: a person is free to write a book putting forward the theory that two plus two equals five. They may even make a lot of money while doing it. However, the theory will not be accepted by mainstream academics. It is using weasel wording to imply that these are "unconventional" or "alternative" theories. This type of wording is always reverted on Wikipedia due to false balance. Wikipedia does not do post-truth, it summarizes what reliable sources say about a subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the introduction as it currently stands makes it adequately clear that mainstream academics regard Hancock's theories as pseudoscientific. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, "unconventional" is definitely not appropriate wording. --bonadea contributions talk 13:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't the crater under Greenland 'vindicate' his Younger Dryas theory and a lot of his perspective on ancient civilizations? Should we change Luis & Walter Alvarez page to pseudoscience? What about Copernicus? Update his wikipedia page to ensure we smear him? Isn't it kind of sad that YOU'VE decided that his work is pseudoscience (even though it has now been proven much like the Alverez theory). And the fact that others in the scientific community have produced work supporting the theory of an impact ~12,000 years ago. Interesting that people are still willing to use smears to defame people and cause a chilling effect in the scientific community. You wouldn't happen to have work that depends on his theories not being true, would you? KRLA18 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The article should summarise what independent reliable sources, representing mainstream science, say. That is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. WE don't decide that it is pseudoscience - that's what multiple secondary sources call it. (See also the discussion under the heading "Proposed changes in the article" above.) --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely not 'his' Younger Dryas theory, he's just using it. That crater could be anywhere between 12,000 and 3 million years old,[2] it doesn't validate anything. There's a 2nd, larger one, probably also too early. 16:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Bonadea, then we need to change the article on pseudoscience, since Graham Hancock doesn't fall into that definition. Just because someone has called his views pseudoscience doesn't mean that that is inherently true. KRLA18 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction as it now stands seems to me to be too strong on the attacking side and to lack balance. Is it necessary to say twice that his work is "pseudoscience" and "pseudoarchaeology"? It was better expressed before by saying that his work is considered by experts to be pseudoscientific. In just the same way, the article on Dante doesn't say he is the greatest Italian poet (however true that may be), but that he is widely considered to be the greatest poet. The first is the writer's POV, the second is something that everyone can agree on. What is more, there seems to me to be nothing wrong with saying that his theories are "unconventional". That is certainly true, and it is not unbalanced provided you go on to add that they are widely considered to be based on incorrect science. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Considered by "experts" to be pseudoscienctific. Perhaps even better would be: "Several prominent archeologists have accused his theories of being pseudoscientific" with references to those archeologists that have accused his theories of being that. 84.208.236.212 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we need to keep it neutral and factual. Your proposed wording is very biased. --bonadea contributions talk 21:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. You need to keep it neutral and factual, which is exactly what it isn't now. You are claiming that he is specifying on pseudoscience with just of one reference. To claim that someone is focusing on pseudoscience seems like a rather strong claim, and with just one reference it seems like it could be selection bias. I also find it interesting that some people are actually publishing articles where they accuse other people of being pseudoscientists. It seems a bit childish to me and doesn't seem much like something that belongs in an academic article. Why do you think my proposal of wording is biased in any possible way? 84.208.236.212 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Graham Hancock to Archaeologists: "You Guys Are the Pseudoscientists"

Jason Colavito has a column [http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/graham-hancock-to-archaeologists-you-guys-are-the-pseudoscientists Graham Hancock to Archaeologists: "You Guys Are the Pseudoscientists"].

Jason says "With the publication of America Before this week, Graham Hancock has launched a major publicity push, larger than the one accompanying Magicians of the Gods four years ago and rivaling his media ubiquity in the late 1990s. According to his U.S. publisher, St. Martin’s, the American part of his marketing campaign will include an initial print run of 125,000 copies, a fourteen-city national book tour, a national media tour, a marketing campaign aimed at scholars and college instructors (!), a featured-title selection at TheHistoryReader.com, and “extensive history blog outreach.” They even offer mail-in prizes, giving early buyers an enamel lapel pin of the book’s logo." See also this. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Graham Hancock has launched a major publicity push - that might explain the increased activity on this article, then. Good column - well-written, and an excellent analysis! --bonadea contributions talk 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Change "Hancock also appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience, episodes No. 551, #725, No. 872, #961" to "Hancock has also appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience episodes 142, 360, 417, 551, 725, 872 and 961" Jacobgoodwin (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 03:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Review of America Before

Here.[3] Doug Weller talk 15:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The use of the terms "pseudoscientific" and "pseudoarcheology"

The entry caracterizes Hancock's work as "pseudocience". "Pseudoscience" is an evaluative term, and there is no general agreement in philosophy of science about how to draw the line between science and pseudoscience, nor that it is possible to draw any such line. The prefix "pseudo-" is also listed under contentious labels in Manual of Style/Words to watch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch

I suggest the following edit:

Original: "Hancock specialises in pseudoscientific theories[1] involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past.

One theme of his works proposes a connection with a 'mother culture' from which he believes other ancient civilisations sprang.[2] An example of pseudoarchaeology, his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals.[1][3][4]"

Suggested edit: "Hancock specialises in theories involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past.

One theme of his works proposes a connection with a 'mother culture' from which he believes other ancient civilisations sprang.[2]

Hancocks work has been described as pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology.[1] His work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals.[1][3][4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.0.218.180 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience vs nonmainstream archeology

There are many nonmainstream theories at wikipedia... some of them, like for example homeopathy should probably be regarded as pseudoscientific.. others, such as Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology is simply just a nonmainstream theory. Graham Hancock might not have published in scientific journals himself, but I get the impression that several actively publishing geologists are at least partially agreeing with his theory. His nonmainstream archeology doesn't seem to fit the definition of pseudoscience to me. Is there any room for alternative nonmainstream theories in archeology, or is everything that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative simply labeled as pseudoarcheology? 84.208.236.212 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No time for details, but there are often differing ideas in main stream archaeology, but they all agree on the basic principles of archaeology. Archaeology is definitely not monolithic, arguments can be intense, eg the Clovis arguments several decades ago. Hancock's doing something else. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

As I have said in the past, Graham Hancock and Erich von Däniken are both in the same boat, because they do not publish their work in academic journals or accept peer review when it is given. This obviously places them outside the mainstream of archaeology. As I have also said before, a person could publish a book putting forward the theory that two plus two equals five and describe it as nonmainstream mathematics. This contains an element of WP:EUPHEMISM, because there would be an attempt to downplay the fact that no mainstream academic supported the theory, as though this was somehow unimportant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Everybody that publish theories in books rather than in academic journals are by your definition pseudoscientists?84.208.236.212 (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No, but Hancock and von Däniken have never published their work in a way that allows it to be reviewed by relevant people who are qualified in the field.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

He makes lots of claims in his books. I am sure it would be possible to critizice many of the claims he makes in his books and publish it in academic journals.84.208.236.212 (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019

Description edit request 1st because: Although he is not an official scientist he follows the scientific method. His hypothesis are not on the beaten track but he is not lying. Pseudo means 'lying' in Greek. 2nd because: He is does not specialises in astrological data and never mentions astrology as such. He does mention astrology as part of past cultures but keeps it with factual astronomical data.

change Graham Bruce Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. Hancock specialises in pseudoscientific theories[1] involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical or astrological data from the past.

to Graham Bruce Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. Hancock specialises in theories involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths, and astronomical data from the past.

Description edit request 1st because: Although he is not an official scientist he follows the scientific method. His hypothesis are not on the beaten track but he is not lying. Pseudo means 'lying' in Greek. 2nd because: He is does not specialises in astrological data and never mentions astrology as such. He does mention astrology as part of past cultures but keeps it with factual astronomical data. Sanderbelou (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems reliable sources describe him as specializing in pseudoscientific theories, him even being displayed prominently on the article Pseudoarchaeology. "Pseudoscientific" does not mean someone is lying. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I just wonder why you have the motivation to say that he is specializing in pseudoscientific theories, rather than just say that some people have accused him of specializing in pseudoscientific theories. Just because some people say that a person is focusing on something, it doesn't mean that it is proved. Tons of authoritative psychologists have claimed that Donald Trump is a narcissist, a psychopath, a sociopath, or an idiot. Should the Wikipedia page about Donald Trump start with saying that Donald Trump is a narcissist, a psychopath, a sociopath, or an idiot, and just give tons of verifiable references to authoritative psychologists that have said things like that? To accuse people like this seems to be rather childish and not very serious for an encyclopedia.84.208.236.212 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

YES INDEED IT SHOULD. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Just following WP:FRINGE. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article about a person, not about a theory.84.208.236.212 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

He is known because he is a writer. The article has to tell the reader what he writes about. A better analogy than the one above would be to say that the article about Donald Trump mentions that he is the president of the United States. We would not say that people "accuse" Trump of being a president, and it is not an "accusation" that Hancock writes about the things he does. --bonadea contributions talk 05:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to inform visitors about what he is doing, you need to be much more precise. Give specific examples of theories he believes in which are considered to be pseudoscientific, rather than attempting to belittle him as a person. Also, saying that he tends to believe in pseudoscience is outright wrong, since many of the theories he believes in, such as the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, or theories about older settlements of the Americas hardly can be considered pseudoscientific. 84.208.236.212 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This article in Forbes Magazine is worth a look. It puts forward the theory that pseudoarchaeology is attractive on a pop culture level, but lacks the formal rigor expected from mainstream academic work. The bottom line is that there is far more money to be made by saying that the pyramids were built by an advanced lost civilization than by boring old humans with logs, ropes and slaves. The article also points out the dangers of ethnocentricity in doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine. So if he believes something else about the pyramids, then criticize him for that specifically. Preferably with a quote of him saying something stupid about the pyramids. That would be much more informative than overgeneralizations. Also, fingerprint of the Gods is from 1995. That is 24 years ago. People don't necessarily have the same beliefs today as they had 24 years ago. Wikipedia didn't even exist 24 years ago, which made it much more difficult for academics to be informed about various things at that time.84.208.236.212 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

He's modified some of his ideas, sure. But he hasn't changed in any fundamental way and academics still view him in the same light.[4][5][[6][7][8][9]. By the way that comet thing? It could be 3 million years old - or rather they, there were two strikes, neither dated yet but sometime between 3 million and 12,000 years ago. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis dates specifically to 12900 years ago, and is as far as I can see an active area of research. Not exactly fringe science. At least I find it interesting that Göbekli Tepe dates to about 12 000 years ago, and is an astonishingly complex architecture for that time. This makes me wonder if they could have been survivors from another civilization that was destroyed in the Younger Dryas impact if there was such an event. Also, the people living at Göbekli Tepe seem to have been responsible for domesticating wheat (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1312) and starting the agricultural revolution. This would make sense if they came from an earlier agrarian civilization that was destroyed by the proposed impact.84.208.236.212 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

Under “Videos” Section:

Change “Hancock also appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience, episodes No. 551, #725, No. 872, #961”

To: “Hancock also appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience, episodes No. 551, #725, No. 872, #961, #1284” 2600:1004:B058:785B:E89D:CE2:DB43:E51E (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: This needs a source. Also, it probably isn't necessary to mention every appearance on the show.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

You claim some of his theories are pseudoscientific, I beg to differ. His theory about civilizations way older than the agreed upon conventional timelines has been vindicated with the discovery of Gobelki Tepe an archaeological site dated to around 10,000 BCE. His theory about a comet striking the earth to cause the massive flooding echoed in thousands of legends from around the world has been vindicated with the discovered of an impact crater in Iceland which is soon to be date. He also claims that the Egyptian Sphinx is way older than the Egyptologists claim, so as of last year none other than the University of Boston is backing the research into re-dating the sphinx based on the weathering patterns caused by major flooding and not wind erosion. I am not sure if you still think that these arguments are not enough to reconsider the offensive title to such a distinguished and trail blazing individual. Please take a moment to do the research yourself, and not rely on somewhat outdated and inconsiderate descriptions. Alancharky (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alancharky: to clarify: There is no evidence of any civilization related to Göbekli Tepe - no cities, etc. The comet strike is not new to him and the Greenland, not Iceland, craters could be as old as 3 million years. There's no evidence of any connection to flooding. I don't know of any new work on the Sphinx but I assume you are referring to some fairly old work by Robert Schoch who works at BU's non-degree awarding Boston University College of General Studies. Exactly what is its parent university backing? You do know that Hancock suggests that his ancient civilization used telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, and healing powers to transmit their legacy to the world.[10] Where did you get the idea the crater in question was in Iceland? Or that there's new work on the Sphinx? Doug Weller talk 16:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you at least replace the offending word "pseudoscientific" to "alternative" theories etc... Thank you for letting me know if this is acceptable, it would mean the world for him and I! One of the drawbacks of the supercharge word "pseudoscientific" is that it appears so prominently on his Google profile which grabs the information from Wikipedia. I am sure you will relate to the fact that Graham works so hard to help bring forth new and alternative ideas and it is quite normal that he is not always right. All I am saying is that he is not always 100 percent right, but I believe that what he is doing that’s worthwhile is that he's asking questions about the past that haven’t been asked enough. Even he doesn't claim that he is right, he's offering alternative theories and his objective is to get people to think for themselves, to think about stuff and not to accept the voice of authority as the sole medium of truth. that’s all he is trying to do, so please consider replacing "pseudoscientific" with "alternative" theories etc... Best personal regards Alan Charky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancharky (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done we use correct terminology as used in reliable sources, not misleading euphemisms that might cause readers to give credence to unscientific theories. --bonadea contributions talk 18:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want sources for using the descriptive “alternative” instead of “pseudo”, I have quite a few: • Britain's Guardian newspaper has credited Graham Hancock with inventing the "alternative history" genre. • The Literary Review labeled Fingerprints of the Gods “one of the intellectual landmarks of the decade further cementing Hancock’s reputation as the foremost explorer of ancient mysteries.” • In Dusting for Fingerprints, Jason Colavito writes: “Praised by The Western Morning News for being as readable as a first-class detective story," the book “Magicians of the Gods” solidified Hancock's reputation in the realm of "alternative history - a genre, Hancock says that Britain's Guardian newspaper has credited him with inventing”. • On Amazon, Graham’s books are categorized as such, “Series: Alternative History”. • In the publication Pop Culture and the Arab World, this is written of him, “Graham Hancock is better known, via a string of titles that, have created a new literary genre of pop alternative history. Unlike many bad Archaeologists, Hancock has modified his conclusions (time and time again) in the light of irrefutable evidence that his earlier conclusions were wrong. This is unusual and something he uses to reassure his supporters that, unlike other writers, he is capable of recognising that conclusions may have to be changed in the light of new evidence. Indeed, he continued to write further books, further exploring his idea of an advanced world-wide civilisation during the later Pleistocene. His hypothesis is quite sensible; “what if our civilization is not the first and was instead a legacy of an earlier advanced culture that had a firm grasp on architecture, astronomy, and all the related knowledge that directly influenced the civilizations in the Fertile Crescent and beyond in the earliest days of their seemingly abrupt beginnings? What evidence do we have that this may be the case? What form would it be likely to take? What might this evidence tell us, both about those who first created it and about ourselves? One of Hancock’s big triumph was that by as early as 1995, he had evolved a theory that was very enigmatic. He had decided that his observations of ancient cultures pointed in one direction: 10,500 BCE there was an earlier advanced civilization who built the Sphinx and passed on their knowledge to the Egyptians, who came along some 6,000 years later. He thereby accurately anticipated the discovery of Gobekli Tepe a site as old as 10,500 BCE. Gobekli Tepe is now considered among the most important megalithic sites in the world and is deeply and significantly “out of place” with our current understanding of Neolithic culture, its social organization, its understanding of the natural world and its abilities. How does that make him a pseudoscientist? Another of Hancock’s big triumph is the Younger Dryas Meteor Impact theory, which is now on the front burner since the recent discovery of the Hiawatha impact crater in NW Greenland. He is yet to be vindicated on that one since the final research has not yet being concluded but will at any time now. What will you say if the evidence is conclusive to what Graham has been saying all along? And so, what was considered “dangerous nonsense” turns out to be not so nonsensical after all. This was no surprise to him, that had his detractors read his work, as opposed to Googling it, they might not have been as dismissive in their assessments and would stop their inaccurate labeling of him as a “pseudo-scientist.” Graham Hancock is NOT a scientist and has never claimed to be one. He does, however, possess an honors degree in sociology from Durham University where he trained with criminologist Stanley Cohen, a major intellectual figure in British sociology, and where he learned the techniques of social science research. What he is, is an investigative journalist. An investigative journalist armed with the training and knowledge of how to do thorough research. As an investigative journalist, Hancock has been immersed in the literature of virtually every academic discipline that concerns itself in any way with our remote past for the past several decades; archaeology, astronomy, myth and folklore, religious studies, geology, climatology, Egyptology, history and more. In a very real way, it is this eclecticism (in higher education it is referred to as “border crossing”) that causes academics to dismiss his work. The boundaries between the academic disciplines are furiously guarded, and a researcher from one discipline, working outside of their home discipline, or more importantly criticizing, another discipline is considered a “breach of etiquette”. Please do the right thing in the eyes of honesty, integrity and truth! Replace that description! Thank you Kindly Alan Charky

 Not done we use correct terminology as used in reliable sources, not misleading euphemisms that might cause readers to give credence to unscientific theories. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2019

Issue #1:

I believe there needs to be a removal of the title of pseudo-scientist and related commentary regarding his occupational identifiers as it false. This article as currently written appears to present opinion and not fact. There is even reference links attributed to Mr Hancock that do not have any reference to him in any form (#4 - Archaeology: An Introduction).

Mr Hancock as far as I know is only identified as a writer and no other occupation or self-styled job identifier even. He may be considered a researcher, but I don't know how accurate that term would be as well. This article has all the appearances of a smear campaign site rather than what Wikipedia is intended for.

Issue 2:

In addition, I'm not sure how to present this BUT much of the presented theory that is the foundation of his writing has been recently proved. His works suggest that a comet hit the North America 12,900 years ago (give or take a couple hundred years). In recent years considerable evidence has been coming up to this being a fact by mainstream scientists and researchers. This information should be noted on the wiki-article somehow even if detractors wish to label it as 'controversial'.

References:

- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-found-for-planet-cooling-asteroid-12900-years-ago/ - https://phys.org/news/2018-02-ice-age-human-witnessed-larger.html - https://www.nature.com/articles/447256a - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humans - https://www.iflscience.com/environment/did-a-comet-impact-cause-massive-wildfires-that-extended-the-ice-age/

Jotow (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Jotow Jotow (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

First, the article doesn't describes him as a pseudoscientist. (It describes him as a pseudoarchaeologist, and provides references for this.) Secondly, the article doesn't mention comets (or asteroids). Should it; and if so, then precisely what should it say about this? -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles from the Society for American Archaeology on Hancock

See [11] 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:[12]! 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).