Talk:Graham Hancock

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024

Change "Pseudoscientific" and "pseudo archaeological" "Scientific" and "archaeological", because the man himself clearly stated that he found this ridiculous. G12427 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

He is neither a subject expert or an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Who do his personal opinions matter on the topic? Lostsandwich (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Graham Hancock does not appear to have absolved any kind of schooling in archeology, yet still makes many claims which go against common scientific consensus without providing a sufficient amount of supported evidence. He also has been shown to exaggerate evidence, or to ignore previously disclosed facts (for example the fact that the "Bimini Road" has been extensively proven to be a stretch of beach rock, yet he claims it to be an Atlantian road in "Ancient Apocalypse"). In turn he would fall under the very defenition of pseudoarcheology.

I think that in turn it is reasonable to refer to him as a pseudoarcheologist in his wiki-article. SomeCatOnTheInternet (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent clarification provided by a RS

I was reverted twice without a WP justifiable reason. I'm open to discussing the RS which I provided. Here is what I want to add for clarification:

Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". . He has also has expressed support for native rights.

This is absolutely true according to an RS and in line with WP policies. We can exclude the word "defamatory" should there be a consensus, but being accused of being "racist", etc., is certainly defamatory.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As I noted at RSN, can you provide a reliable source that the SAA has explicitly called Hancock a racist and white supremicist, rather than just saying he's promoted ideas that are racist and white supremacist in origin? There's frankly, a massive diffrerence between the two. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Its an SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

References

RSN discussion

Regarding the recent edit war, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Joe_Rogan_Experience. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

1. GH was indirectly, but clearly, accused of various serious things.

a. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse

b. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix

c. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled

d. https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis

e. https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/

f. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-07/experts-say-ancient-apocalypse-netflix-series-is-racist-untrue/101728298

g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse

h. https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881

i. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13965425/ancient-APOCALYPSE-comet-Netflix.html

2. I updated the article providing a RS source saying that GH strongly, and in no uncertain terms, rejected such very serious allegations.

a. Joe Rogan Experience #2136 - 2:02, 2:08, & 2:19.  

b. Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremacist, etc., as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". . He has also has expressed support for native rights.

3. I was reverted, and then I reverted...twice, which I freely admit was wrong, although an honest mistake. My sincere apologies.

4. I was given an "edit warring" warning on my home page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_the_Cat_7

a. I responded, saying, "I provided an RS, which apparently you didn't agree with. We can discuss it on the talk page should you wish, but I honestly believe you are the one who is "edit warring". Let's take this up on the Talk page. Bill the Cat (talk)"

5. That didn't seem to satisfy User:Hemiauchenia. Instead, the user opened a ticket to the Edit Warring WP site (I can't find the link for this; it may have been deleted), as well as this RS site.

a. Note that I said I was willing to discuss it on the Talk Page of GH.

a. This might be WP:WikiBullying, but I'm not sure and I'm not claiming that it is. 

6. The SAA article claimed that "Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic."

a. Most reasonable people would agree that these are strong accusations and defamatory if they are not true.  According to GH, these accusations and defamatory statements are very much completely false.  

7. I'm NOT suggesting that the article from the SAA be in any way removed or censored. I think it's important. In fact, I think it ought to be expanded to explain what exactly is being claimed and why. However, I maintain that an accurate and equally clear rebuttal in GH's own words, must be included in the article.

8. With the policies linked below, I can provide another RS for GH's full response in his own words (not in WP Voice), to most or all claims leveled against him. Although this discussion should have been explored on GH's Talk Page, my hand has been forced, so I'm engaging here. I can update GH's Talk Page with these points after this has been resolved.

a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources

9. I haven't seriously edited WP in a quite a long time (12+ years). Forgive me if I don't have neither the time nor inclination to engage in such matters on a regular basis. I'm just a WP Gnome at this point. Nevertheless, much of the article is a direct attack on GH's theories (pseudo this and pseudo that, etc.). Fair enough, since they are sourced. A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications must be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable.

Thank you. ~~~~ Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you actually suggesting? As far as I can see, the self-published source you've provided can at best support the statement "Hancock denies being a racist or white supremacist". I don't see the point of including this, though, because it's kind of a given that he would make such a denial. Almost everybody denies being racist – especially after they've done something racist. – Joe (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't see a point in allowing the person in question to defend himself against obvious defamatory claims? Seriously? If the accusations are true (although WP is not concerned, for good reasons, with "the truth"), they are NOT defamatory, but that's the pertinent question, right? GH should be allowed to respond for purposes of neutrality, even with self-published sources, per self-published sources policies. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course he can respond. That's got nothing to do with us; we're an encyclopaedia, not a forum for debate. The question is whether adding "Hancock denies being a racist" to our biography is adequately supported by sources (yes) and useful to readers (probably not, because what else would he say?) – Joe (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

People saying that "Graham Hancock has promoted ideas of racist origin" is not the same as saying that he has been indirectly, but clearly, accused of being a racist and white supremacist. If you can't understand this basic distinction then you have no business editing Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that seems to me to be clearly hostile and a personal attack, which I find very offensive. Perhaps you should assume good faith. At this point, I think you are engaging in WP:WikiBullying. I would much rather discuss this in a civil manner, but your last statement makes it difficult, although I will continue to engage civilly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:CIR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Another passive-agreesive attack. You sure you want to continue along these lines? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to take me to WP:ANI to report me, be my guest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to include something on Hancock's response, this article from the Express is (surprisingly) a better source. – Joe (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We already says he denies it "Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist, and has expressed support for native rights.". |Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, right. What are we even talking about here then, Bill the Cat 7? – Joe (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You started this thread, I assume you know. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Erm, I didn't? – Joe (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I saw your ping and thought it was a signature, sorry. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2024

A change from “pseudoscience” and/or “pseudo archaeologist” should be removed per the individual himself stating he is an investigative journalist and finds the aforementioned terms “absurd” 66.76.20.102 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say about a subject, not what people claim about themselves. The article describes him primarily as a writer, which is correct. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Flawed argument

If these quotes are correct, he merely claims that "large regions", not ALL of Antarctica, had been ice-free. Therefore it's irrelevant that he wouldn't mention the possibility that much of the ice may very well have been there much longer. This should be removed as an attack on credibility.

Hancock wrote that "the best recent evidence suggests that" large regions of Antarctica may have been ice free until about 6,000 years ago, referring to the Piri Reis map and Hapgood's work from the 1960s. What is left entirely unmentioned are the extensive studies of the Antarctic ice sheet by George H. Denton, published in 1981, which showed the ice to be hundreds of thousands of years old. 2600:1702:5E73:5600:1CA5:FA5C:D8B9:2814 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hancock's claim of large areas of Antarctica being ice free until 6,000 years is from a geological perspective, absurd (Antarctica as been essentially completely ice-covered for the last 5-10 million years, millions of years before the start of the current ice age) and completely refuted by evidence from paleoclimatology and ice cores. If Hancock's claim had any merit it would be mentioned in the extensive scientific literature discussing Antarctica and its ice sheets, but it's not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The "best evidence" that Hancock has presented is very antiquated and decades old; incorporates a discredited dating methodology, and for unknown reasons overlooks literally dozens of contemporary and more recent studies that refute his conclusions. For example, since Hapgood's research in the 1960s, literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers, master’s theses, and PhD dissertations have studied the grounding line of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and location of the seaward edge of its associated ice shelf in the Ross sea embayment since the Last Glacial Maximum. They have used sidescan sonar and seismic reflection to map surface morphology and internal stratigraphy of the bottom of the Ross Sea. Also, innumerable sediment cores have been taken from the bottom of the Ross Sea to determine and map the lithology and environments of deposition of these deposits and date them using a variety of independent methods. Finally, using diatoms, foraminifera, and other microfossils from the sediments in these cores, the paleoenvironmental conditions under which these sediments were determined and mapped for the Ross Sea from the Last Glacial Maximum to present. These studies, and similar ones for the Weddell Sea, demonstrate that the greatest expansion of West Antarctic Ice Sheet occurred at the Last Glacial Maximum and it shrank with a few minor readvances to it modern limits. The largest known "ice sheet-free" area, now covered by grounded ice, that existed prior to 6000 BP was patch of Ross Sea that existed from 10,200 to 7,900 BP. Even it was at that time flooded by the Ross Sea and covered by a thick floating ice shelf and uninhabitable. Similar research has been conducted all along the coast of Antarctica and returned the same results for the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and refuted the idea that it had even "largely ice-free" since the Last Glacial Maximum.

If you want that statement changed, you will need to present a reliable source that supports Hancock's assertions independently of either Hancock or Hapgood.

Some random examples of the above publications are:

Ackert Jr, R.P., Mukhopadhyay, S., Parizek, B.R. and Borns, H.W., 2007. Ice elevation near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet divide during the last glaciation. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(21). open access

Anderson, J.B., 1999. Antarctic Marine Geology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 289 pp., hardcover (ISBN 0-521-59317- 4),

Bart, P.J., Anderson, J.B. and Nitsche, F., 2017. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JF004259 Post‐LGM grounding‐line positions of the Bindschadler paleo ice stream in the Ross Sea Embayment, Antarctica.] Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 122(10), pp.1827-1844. open access

Bart, P.J., Krogmeier, B.J., Bart, M.P. and Tulaczyk, S., 2017. The paradox of a long grounding during West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat in Ross Sea. Scientific Reports, 7(1), p.1262. open access

Ingólfsson, Ó., 2004. Quaternary glacial and climate history of Antarctica. Developments in Quaternary sciences, 2, pp.3-43.

Kingslake, J., Scherer, R., Albrecht, T., Coenen, J., Powell, R., Reese, R., Stansell, N., Tulaczyk, S., Wearing, M. and Whitehouse, P.L., 2018. Extensive Holocene West Antarctic ice sheet retreat and rebound driven re‐advance. Nature, 558, pp.430-434. Paul H. (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Evidence not addressed

This entry focuses on a character assassination of Graham Hancock. It does not address many of his material observations, such as the quality of the stonework which forms the foundations of buildings that known primitive societies built on top of with inferior quality stonework. This entry and the one on Ancient Apocalypse are hostile and sarcastic, inviting the accusation of argumentum ad hominem. I was looking for a critique of Graham Hancock's evidence and arguments, but I find criticisms of him as a thinker, without citing evidence to support them, which is not scholarly. The constant repetition of 'pseudoarchaeological' and 'pseudoscientific' is a case in point. The attempt to discredit him as a racist is also highly unworthy of a scholar. No evidence of this is presented, and indeed Hancock consistently speaks of ancient peoples and civilisations with great respect. It is also untrue that Hancock posits an advanced civilisation that left no written language. In his second Ancient Apocalypse series, he speaks of the as yet undeciphered Rongorongo writing of Easter Island, and indeed suggests that its significance was lost due to the disruption of Easter Island's cultural tradition through the depredations of white Europeans. As a result of the entry writer's concentration on discrediting Graham Hancock, I have found nothing in this article that provides the factual critique I sought about his arguments. Hopefully someone will write another, more informative entry. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS said. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is also not very informative. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, our article cannot analyze his work only repeat what others think about it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Your article could provide alternative theories to his, on the basis of the evidence he presents. That is how scholarly debate is conducted. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we say what RS say about his theories, what we do not do is engage in WP:FALSEBALANCE by treating them more seriously than the RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly debate is conducted in scholarly forums – not Wikipedia. Our job is to write encyclopaedia articles by summarising what reliable sources have said about a subject. If you're looking for factual critique, I suggest following some of the links in the references and further reading section. On Ancient Apocalypse specifically, this video series is very good. – Joe (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But you have not summarised any reliable sources; that's what I was looking for. How do reliable sources counter Hancock's claims? It isn't enough to repeat 'Unscientific! Unscientific!' and 'Racist, Racist!' If I had asked undergraduates to summarise reliable sources and was handed this entry, it wouldn't have got any mark at all. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think the critiques in the article's sources amount to just saying "Unscientific" and "Racist" over and over, that's on you. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t seen any critiques from sources, that’s the point. My comment is about your entry, which doesn’t cite source material. 2A02:8084:223:AA80:65A0:F3F5:CCB1:B2AC (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The article cites arguments from the 2006 book Archaeological Fantasies by Garrett G. Fagan - is that the kind of source you're looking for? Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like a summary of evidence and theories that refute Hancock’s rather than on Hancock himself. Has anyone presented alternative theories for the evidence he gives? If so, what are they? 2A02:8084:223:AA80:65A0:F3F5:CCB1:B2AC (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire #Pseudoarchaeology section of this article does exactly what you're asking for here, including citing specific sources and authors like Garrett Fagan. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. There's a lot of archaeological evidence Hancock looks at that is not addressed at all. I don't think we are getting anywhere, so maybe we should just stop. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Just brushing off the mountains of evidence against him as "oh it doesn't cover everything in the archaeological evidence" isn't very helpful here. Again, it's on you for not looking at what's been given to you multiple times. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

'It's on you' is not a grown up response, I'm not even sure what it means. If there is a mountain of evidence, show it to me. That's all I've been asking in every reply I've sent you. I can't make it any clearer than that, and if you still don't understand, please leave me alone. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

First off read WP:ONUS and wp:NPA secondly, we do to have to cover (and can't cover) every claim he makes, just demonstrate that the main arguments are flawed, after all even a broken clock is right twice a day. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and I say "it's on you" because it's clear you seem to just be dismissing everything we've given you without actually reading them. What you're asking for can be found in what's cited in the article, like Archaeological Fantasies which I've mentioned multiple times, and this Skeptic article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not dismissing anything. I am saying that attacks on a person do not constitute a refutation of that person's argument. The way to do that is to cite Hancock's theses one by one and then present other people's refutations of them. It isn't good enough to say 'Go read this book'. A good Wikipedia entry should summarise the arguments for us. In other words, this was not a good way to write this entry. It would be worth revising it as a whole, rather than trying to patch it up. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The Pseudoarchaeology section of the article I mentioned before does exactly what you're asking for here: It presents his theses, and offers refutations of them from cited reliable sources. I'm not sure what you think should be different about it? I kept bringing up the books because you insisted the article wasn't good enough and you asked for more specific reliable sources. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This is how it should be done

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj8096 Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Does that say anything we do not already cover in our article? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it contains just as little actual rebuttal. But it puts it in some context. I find it hard to trust people who accuse someone else of speaking nonsense when they don't back up what they say with evidence. The reaction to Hancock seems rather hysterical. What I want to know is: if the human footprints found between two layers of mammoth footprints aren't evidence of ice-age humanity, what is it evidence of? And if sophisticated heat-moulded rock structures are found underneath more primitive layers of Mayan rock structures, who built them? I have no prejudices one way or another, I would just like to hear alternative theories, not just screams of 'He's not scientific!' Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But it says nothing different to us, so anything it says must be already here, so what it covers we cv over, ego our article must be at least as good as that one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read anything that gives me any facts. I would have thought that the entire archaeological community between them could have produced one good refutation of one of Hancock's arguments. The point for you isn't whether your Wiki entry is as good or better than another similar article, it's this: Are you really curious about the world and people? Because it's curiosity, a real need to find out, that makes a scientist, indeed any scholar. Don't waste time worrying about this or that article. As Kipling's mongoose would say, 'Go and find out'. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are upset about. First, the White Sands fossil footprints have been discussed extensively in multiple peer-reviewed papers in highly respected peer-reviewed papers. It is quite clear that the scientific community is very interested in them and takes them very seriously.

Finally, although Hancock rambles on about Palenque and the Maya calendar, I don't remember any "heat-molded" stones associated with the Mayans being mentioned in Ancient Apocalypse. Apparently, you are referring to the Incan site of Sacsayhuaman (Chincana Chica). The best that I can find, this is the idea that the local rock can be softened for use as building blocks by some still unknown process. A variety of methods involving plant juices, heat, and so-called geopolymers has been proposed. Despite all of the talk, nobody, including Jesus Gamarra, has yet published a detailed description of how either heat or plant juices were used to soften stone in a reliable source that can be used in Wikipedia. Their discussion has all been vague, non-specific speculation and arm-waving "published" on fringe messsageboards, blogs and videos. To be taken seriously, someone needs explain in detail a reliable source exactly how this was done and replicate these processes using the type of stone used at Sacsayhuaman. For them, it is long past the time to put up or shut up. The geopolymer method has actually been published in scientific journals. So far, It appears that nonone either takes either geopolymers or its papers seriously enough to either mention or comment about them in print. In addition, nobody has reported having successfully replicated this process using the type of stone used at Sacsayhuaman.

Wikipedia articles are not long enough to provide a claim by claim discussion of every fringe claim posted to the Internet. Paul H. (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not upset at all. Thank you for the information you have provided. It didn't require many words, so it would be worth adding to the entry, if only as an example. In the same way, it would be worthwhile devoting a few lines to the footprints in White Sands. These things, at least, refer to physical evidence, so are worth mentioning in the entry. The theory of heat moulded stones is discussed in Ancient Apocalypse: The Americas, which has just come out on Netflix. I haven't intended to annoy anyone; I am a retired academic and I have just been needling you to try to get some factual information. So thank you for your information on the unreliability of Hancock's theories. This would be more convincing, however, if the critics produced some alternative theories of their own. Then there could be a scholarly discussion. Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be dropped? Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC) http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=634462&article_id=3531896&view=articleBrowser https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-netflix-theory-explained.html

👍 Janet Elaine Harding (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This needs closing, as it is going nowhere fast. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Cornish Descent

On the most recent Joe Rogan episode 2214, Graham Hancock said he was of Cornish descent. Please can this be added here as well as on famous cornish people. 147.147.131.168 (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Its trivia, but it would not as far as I can see be a major issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)