Talk:Graham Hancock

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

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

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

It is clear what is needed. A true description of Graham Hancock would first state that he is a journalist with an interest in history. This article is clearly not objective. 82.3.116.244 (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A shame then that he ignores actual history. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

More tone (and NPOV?) complaints

This has been discussed a bunch before, but insofar as the page still has issues and the old threads are archived, I'm going to make a fresh tone complaint thread.

Briefly, as I said in my original complaint, my problem with the article is that it's written in a way that sounds like it's intended to be persuasive, and to let you know what a disreputable idiot Hancock is. Now as far as I can tell, he really is a disreputable idiot, but The Encyclopedia is not supposed to say that. It can tell you all the disreputable and idiotic things he's done (except where doing so involves undue weight, but that's not an issue here), and it can clarify that these things are considered disreputable and idiotic by reputable experts and the prevailing standards of their fields of study. And in my opinion the article should do all of these things to Hancock. But it may not make conclusions, and shouldn't even appear to do so.

In my original complaint @Hypnôs replied that tone was not a NPOV issue. This seems like an odd opinion to me. For example, the NPOV page has a section on impartial tone. The NPOV tutorial has a section on neutral language. And so on. If the editors who codified these policies intended us to regard partiality of tone as unrelated to NPOV, they went about communicating this in a rather funny way.

So tone IS an NPOV issue. However, for the benefit of others with the same mistaken impression: I am NOT suggesting that we need to give additional weight to the works of the idiot fringe circles Hancock moves with in order to qualify as NPOV. It might be entertaining to mention some of them, because the reader might want to know just how dumb these people can get, but it's not a hard requirement.

I am specifically opposed to the description by Wikipedia (but not by his critics) of Hancock as a pseudoscientist or a psuedo-archaeologist. I just don't think these are particularly well-defined terms, so they end up just being terms of abuse in practice (not that some of the targets don't deserve abuse, but Wikipedia isn't allowed to join in). To say that someone is outside the mainstream of archaeological opinion is a clear, factual statement. To say that someone asserts specific claims (which an intelligent reader would regard as stupid) is also a clear, factual statement. To say that some recognized authority identified the specific claims as stupid is again a clear, factual statement. But to say, ex cathedra, the claims or the person are psuedoscientific is substantially less clear. I don't immediately know what it's supposed to tell me about that person other than they are Bad At Science In Some Way. It's perfectly cromulent to cite somebody like the SAA saying that Hancock is a pseudoscientist, but not for Wikipedia to say so. And indeed, we do cite people calling him that in the 3rd paragraph of the lede, which is fine. Calling his work pseudoscientific in the first sentence of the lede feels like gilding the lily.

I also agree with the criticism of the IP editor in this post. I disagree with the other IP editor who wrote "It should be sufficient to present him as the author of some imaginative and entertaining conjectures that the scientific community...regard as being outside the scope of evidence-based research." To an extent this is the right idea, but we're under no obligation to spin Hancock positively. We should say that he is the author of conjectures (no need for any positive adjectives; they're as problematic as "pseudoscience"), and that these are regarded as stupid by people who know better, since these are the true facts of the case. And we should try to sound as neutral as possible while saying this. My own view is that the actual facts of the matter are far more damning to Hancock than any shade a POV-pushing editor might care to throw in, so I'd prefer people not get in the way of those facts.

I think it's extremely bad form to have the main in-article section on his work and claims titled "Pseudoarchaeology". It would be much better to have a section called something like "Claims" which neutrally described all the dumb shit he thinks, and then possibly another section called "Accusations of Pseudoarchaeology" which would go into more depth on why the various expects regard his work as pseudoscientific.

I could go on, but I'm just going to say there are still enough problems with the article (which I don't feel up to fixing myself at the moment) to justify putting the NPOV template back in for now. Dingsuntil (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade is the NPOV. The terminology is what the reliable sources use, hence we use it as well. The terms are explained in detail, specifically in the context of Hancock's work.

In my original complaint @Hypnôs replied that tone was not a NPOV issue.

I said that the thoroughness of the article is not a NPOV issue. Hypnôs (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

A source may be both reliable and POV, but Wikipedia is NPOV. Hence we may not always follow a source simply because it is reliable. In the original thread, you wrote "It sounds like you object to the tone and thoroughness of the article, which in not a NPOV issue." I did not in fact have any objection to the thoroughness of the article, but I did have to the tone, which is a NPOV issue.

Note that the "Calling a spade a spade" article is opinion, not policy. In addition, the example it gives is to prefer what is in fact a straightforward factual statement (That Flat Earth is scientifically disproven) to weasel words. "Psuedoscience" is substantially less precise than "Scientifically disproven". And calling Hancock's theories "fringe" is not weasel words, but a straightforwardly factual statement. In addition, we note that reliable sources call his work pseudoscientific in the 3rd paragraph, so IMO there is no question of burying the lede.

In any case, what is your positive case for calling Hancock a pseudoscientist in both the 1st and 3rd paragraph, rather than simply in the 3rd paragraph? I haven't heard one other than "calling a spade a spade", and in my opinion we are in this case calling a spade "a garden tool of some kind" (i.e. being less straightforwardly factual and precise than we could be), and to what purpose? If it's to make the article more critical of the subject, I think that's both unnecessary and contrary to policy. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:FIRSTSENTENCE:

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English.

In the third paragraph it is expanded on. That's why it's mentioned twice.

To give an example of another article: John F. Kennedy mentions in the first sentence that he was an US president, and the entire third paragraph is about his presidency. Hypnôs (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you believe that WP:FIRSTSENTENCE supports your view, rather than the alternative. So far you have merely cited it. You have not explained how it constitutes an argument against my view, or the positive case for your view. Dingsuntil (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other. So please explain what you think my view is. Hypnôs (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

By "Your view" I mean that we should use the term "pseudoscientific" in the first sentence. That seems to be the position you've been defending here. Dingsuntil (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific is better because many of the ideas Hancock proposes are not fringe (not widely accepted in the relevant scientific field) but either incompatible with the scientific method or devoid of any evidentiary basis. Hypnôs (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're not disputing that "fringe" is accurate are you? You're saying that "pseudoscientific" is also accurate, and somehow preferable? Or are you actually saying "fringe" is not correct? Dingsuntil (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hancock writes about fringe, mainstream and pseudoscience. As a whole it is pseudoscientific for the reasons outlined in the article. Hypnôs (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this answers my question. Can you answer it? Dingsuntil (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Fringe may or may not be accurate depending on which definition you use. Hypnôs (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There are no "accusations" of pseudoscience/pseudoarchaeology. It is not a crime. It's a neutral description of what he does that literally every single reliable source on his work agrees upon. A neutral point of view—as we define it here on Wikipedia—is fairly summarising what reliable sources say, not pursuing a balance between stupidity and reason. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This Article is Laughably Biased

The following selections within the introduction should be changed:

1) "Hancock portrays himself as a culture hero who fights the "dogmatism" of academics, presenting his work as more valid than professional archaeology" [13] should be entirely deleted. The source article [13] does not make this claim. Rather, [13] states that Hancock appears as a culture hero when one adopts "a less commonly explored perspective" of Hancock's work. Besides, even if the article did make the above claim, the quote should still be prefaced by "In the opinion of Hammer et al" instead of stating the conclusion as a fact.

2) "Hancock portrays himself as ... a path to truly understanding reality and the spiritual elements denied by materialist science" is an opinion regarding Hancock's work stated as a fact. It should be prefaced by "From Card's perspective...". Leave readers to form their own conclusion on the basis of expert opinions instead of spoon feeding them.

This article reads and looks like an article written in jest on a Wikipedia spin-off, like RationalWiki. Gilgur (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The point of a WP:RS should be rephrased, as long as it does not change its meaning. We also have the website policy WP:PSCI, so we have to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, per point 1) above, source [13]'s meaning is entirely misrepresented. You're not calling a spade a spade. You're calling opinions facts. Gilgur (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @Hypnôs, the editor who added that quote, for any further insight thry might have on this topic. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That is both entirely untrue (Graham's behavior is well-documented; your claim that this is just one person's opinion is entirely without merit as we can all see that it's accurate) and a wild misunderstanding of tgeorgescu's point. His point is that Hancock must be labelled a pseudoarcheologist and his work labelled as pseudoarcheology because that is exactly what it is, and your requests for changes above cannot be accommodated because they would make the article less accurate.

Also, the highly emotive tone of your request is a big turn-off to most of us here. It does not convey anything to us except the notion that engaging with you promises to be exhausting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Your reply illustrates the genesis of the bias that infests this page. From your perspective, every claim about Hancock is a referendum upon whether or not he is a legitimate archaeologist. I never argued for or against his credibility. The page itself (not me) sites a single author’s opinion (laughably) as an ostensible expert consensus regarding how Hancock portrays himself. Further, the source doesn’t even comment upon how Hancock portrays himself. Gilgur (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

That's just like, your opinion, man. (I'll note that Hypnos is directly contradicting your claims about the source below.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

1) "Hancock portrays himself as a culture hero who fights the "dogmatism" of academics, presenting his work as more valid than professional archaeology" [13] should be entirely deleted. The source article [13] does not make this claim.

[13] says: "...Hancock as a present-day Promethean culture hero who fights the dogmatism of academics..." and "...culture hero myth is presented as evidence-based and empirically more valid than the accounts of professional archaeologists."

Rather, [13] states that Hancock appears as a culture hero when one adopts "a less commonly explored perspective" of Hancock's work.

Full sentence from [13] is: "A less commonly explored perspective is to see Hancock as a bricoleur who creates a myth from a motley selection of cultural elements." Hypnôs (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

To quote what Hancock has said about Card's article: [2] Card’s precis of my arguments is fair, and in general I’d say that his analysis of my work and its function is much more carefully thought through than that of any of the other contributors. Given that Hancock apparently agrees with Card's analysis, I don't think we need to attribute it to Card. f fo Hammer et al. my argument is the same as that of Hypnos. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)