Talk:Graham Hancock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NPOV

Whatever people think about this guy and however he does his research we have to have a NPOV on this. --Lukeisham 07:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree -I hope that you think my additions have not changed this. The Horizon programme is certainly an important issue for pro and anti-Hancock-ers adamsan 23:45 18 April 2004 (BST)

Yep, fair enough, Adamsan. I like the format of a factual/details paragraph and then paragraphs dealing with the controversy. --Lukeisham 00:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hancock is either one of two thing: A man who is lying and doesn't know it, or a man who is lying and does. I don't know which is worse. I am the one who edited the page originally to show the facts; that he's a New Age pseudoscientist and pseudoarchaeologist. These facts are established and not debatable in any sort of informed setting. However, I know that if I change it back, someone will just come behind me and give it the so-called 'fair' treatment. So I wash my hands of the whole affair. If Wikipedia wants to provide bad or wrong information, well, who am I to stop them? --jerryb1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by jerrb1961 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the man is a clever con-man exploiting the public's thirst for fantastic tales just deeply, deeply stupid or just lacks any discriminatory thought processes at all. Either way, I agree that the vast corpus of material that explicitly or implicitly makes a mockery of his emissions should be acknowledged in the article and I have had a go at it. I am willing to take on the role you have vacated and will watch this page to be sure that any pro-Hancock sentiments get a paragraph detailing precisely why his latest theory is a load of BS. Adamsan 22:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adamsan: I have the same opinion about you. I have read his books, and he only lays out the evidence and does not make any unwarranted conclusions. Maybe you are trying to discredit his veiws because you are a pseudo-intellectual, or a psuedo-academic. Be sure that I will watch this page and be sure to erase you BS comments, every day. I know why you are trying to discredit this page, and who told you to do it. MadMonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmonkey1 (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I disagree with Hancock and think that he works outside the academic world but we can't call him a pseudoscientist because that term sounds just as crackpot as his claims. Isn’t it better in neutral terms to describe what he claims and then show clearly and carefully the evidence against him? Doesn't that debunk far more effectively then calling him a pseudoarchaeologist? Furthermore how is something not debatable? --Lukeisham 11:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hahaha. Do you guys have nothing better to do than cut down a free thinker? He does not actually make any claims, only lays out the evidence, and it is convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmonkey1 (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Always great when some fan comes along and states that "He does not actually make any claims, only lays out the evidence" - this is per se impossible. One cannot merely "lay out evidence" (what evidence actually) and he certainly makes claims. He would be the first to admit it. Without claims, there would be no point in reading it all. And, as ever, a "free thinker" is of course deemed to be beyond criticism. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Lukeisham that Graham Hancock should not be called 'pseudoscientist', becaue GH doesn't pretend to be a scientist at all. He could be called so if he pretended to have scientific knowlegde, or untruly attributed himself any scientific titles. He does not do so. Everyone may speculate about some unexplained (or not fully explained) things and it does not make him 'pseudoscientist' unless he claims to be a scientist. Everyone may take part in a debate and it doesn't make him a stupid person or a liar. Thus, I hold the term 'pseudoscientist' to be pejorative and POV -- (Critto, but unlogged)

His highly flexible approach to the available evidence does show a disingenousness and I don't think he has to make the statement I am a scientist before we're allowed to prefix that with 'pseudo'. He does try to be scientific: the New Scientist review of 'Underworld' linked at the bottom of the article says Sad though this stuff is, there are some signs that Hancock is now trying to understand the scientific norms he continues to "challenge". Speculation is fine but he continues to fail to produce any evidence, he misleads the public (by claiming links between Easter Island and Giza for goodness sake) and he craftily edits television interviews with others to wrongly give the impression his views have support. All these techniques are those of someone who examines a scientific subject without using objective scientific methods. That is pseudoscience which wikipedia also defines as ...any body of knowledge purporting...to be of an even higher standard of knowledge. That describes Hancock's entire corpus. That he surrounds his outlandish statements with phrases such as to my mind this looks like... and ...could there be something the archaeologists have missed? provides a figleaf of harmless speculation hiding the pseudoarchaeology of his approach. I have adjusted my opinion of Hancock written above as he must at least be cleverer that the people who continually buy his books. adamsan 08:30, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Misleading the pubic you say? What does a scientific degree have to do with examining historical evidence? I happen to know they don't teach anything in school that will allow one to know the history of the world. I have even heard you guys improperly referring, and bashing, Albert Einsteins theories to Hancock on these wiki pages. I am sure because you got a degree from academia you know better than Einstein. Even though you haven't done anything worth mentioning yourself, besides sponsoring ad hominem attacks on authors whose work you disagree with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmonkey1 (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I came to this page expecting to learn more about Mr. Hancock's background. A paragraph in and every other word is pseudothis or pseudothat while expressing, he, not once called himself a professional practitioner of what he's being labeled a pseudo of. This is ridiculous and these emotionally charged totalitarianist assertions that things cannot be debated or you will be ridiculed just further blurs the line between a search for objectivity and politically driven motives. Britannica has provided me with a much more objective summary for the answers I came here seeking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC

I wonder how many have actually read beyond the opening sentences of one of Mr. Hancock's books. --Jibegod 21:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jibegod. I certainly welcome your additions and admit that I've only seen Hancock's TV work and haven't sprung for any of his books. I do dislike the use of 'show' to describe Horizon though. Although the programme isn't as good as it was, I do feel the term has pejorative overtones. I also feel that 'which all ancient historical civilizations sprang' ought to be replaced with 'which he believes all ancient historical civilizations sprang'. adamsan 22:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough --jibegod 19:42, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

May 2005 Edits

The following has been edited into the article: Considering that his analysis of data suggests many mistakes and errors of judgement on the behalf of historical academics, their defensive view of Hancock is to be expected. In his own defense, Hancock claims that the orthodox establishment only maintains their arguments based on erroneous data for the sake of preserving their academic reputation

• Because of course, Hancock doesn't need to prove his theories, it's everyone else who is wrong.

If that's your point of view, then you should be more supportive of my edits. If you're just being fascetious, I'm not surprised. GabrielAPetrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielAPetrie (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

One example is the ignoring by egyptologists of the evidence, backed by geological researchers, that the weathering of the Sphynx would have required a torrential downpouring of rain over a prolonged period of time, placing its origins not in the pharaonic era but before that time when the region of the historically arid Sahara still sustained tropical, rainforest weather. As for the reason why Egyptologists refuse to consider the evidence of geologists in determining the actual era of the creation of the Sphynx, Hancock also cites documented incidences of the destruction of archeaological evidence and even the strong-arming of unorthodox researchers in the fields of egyptology and archeaology by their respected establishments.

• Please follow the links at the bottom of the page. eg From the Horizon transcript:

"But the [Sphinx] erosion argument has not stood up to the scrutiny of geologists. Erosion on the Giza plateau does not depend on water. The Giza limestones contain salts and these have proved to cause destructive levels of erosion in very short periods of time. There is no hard evidence that the Sphinx is any older than the orthodox date. "

On the other hand, other geologists (there are more than two) insist that the vertical erosion on the sphynx could not have been caused by available rainfall since the (establishment-)alleged era of its construction, and could not have been formed by blowing wind, either. While wind has caused horizontal erosions on the sphynx, geologists have asserted that the vertical erosions on the sphynx, sphynx temple, and osirion must have been caused by torrential rainfall. Other megaliths at giza since the (establishment-)alleged date of not just the sphynx but every other monument there do not also show the same erosion. GabrielAPetrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielAPetrie (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

However, considering that the numbers and densities of 'famous' (read: arbitrary) landmarks in the region of New York are much higher than the numbers, densities, and prominence of ancient temples per their regions, that rebuttle has little relevance.

• The temple complex at Ankor Watt has numerous sites to which Hancock has also applied celebrity (read:arbitrary) significance in his dot-to-dots whilst ignoring others. (see quote below)

The rebuttle of Angkor/Draco is really limited to itself. Angkor, first of all, is not as ancient as any of the other sites which Hancock discusses. Hancock asserts that it was probably planned with the same spiritual purpose in mind but clearly the temples are not similar in terms of megalithic feats and other suprises. Angkor does not share the same antiquity or the same megalithic feat as the other temples, and so of course it does make a good comparison to other modern, sprawling sites such as New York City. However, you can't pull the same brush-off with the alignments Giza/Orion+Leo or any of the other sites/constellations that deal with much fewer points and of far greater prominence per site. GabrielAPetrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielAPetrie (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In actuality, the locations of the megalithic structures is public record and available to anyone, as are the locations and appearance of the constellations. In the books themselves, the locations and appearances of the temples and constellations are presented accurately, and the reality of the temple placements aligning to the constellations is a simple matter for anyone to study and see for themselves.

• Which particular megalithic structures are you talking about? The Horizon programme demonstrated how wrong he his at Ankor. Quote:

"ELEANOR MANNIKA (University of Michigan): This hypothesis is based on the fact that certain temples are placed in their position because they have to follow a pattern that evokes the constellation Draco, so if we look at this we see the beginning apparently is the head right here at Angkor Vat and the pattern goes from there up to Phnom Bakheng which is this enormous central mountain. Then it travels up here to (TEMPLE NAME) Thom and then it goes over here to (TEMPLE NAME) and from (TEMPLE NAME) it goes to (TEMPLE NAME). Then it goes to (TEMPLE NAME), then it goes to (TEMPLE NAME), out here to (TEMPLE NAME) built in the 12th century. I see a vague resemblance of course because it goes up and down and off, but actually the tail of Draco goes way up like this, it doesn't just go off like that."

Again, that's just angkor. It's not Hancock's fault, or mine, that Angkor was, comparable to the megalithic monuments, a schlock job. It was probably incomplete, but the initial resemblance to Draco is admitted even by the quoted above. GabrielAPetrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielAPetrie (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hancock includes only ten temples in the shape of the constellation Draco, but investigation of the Angkor region has revealed that there are more than 60 temples. It seems arbitrary to use so few out of so many. The correlation he has found begins to look more like coincidence than planning.

The ten temples chosen by hancock, if you had bothered to read "Heaven's Mirror" (which I see isn't even listed, how convenient since it's so thoroughly illustrated with drawings and photographs of all the sites and temples,) were chosen for specific reasons. You seem to have forgotten 'prominence'. And I doubt you can find ancient archaeoastronomical reasons to pick any arbitrary number of New York city buildings. But do try. GabrielAPetrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielAPetrie (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• And then the clincher:

"HANCOCK:I'm sure that, that there are academics who can find a dozen reasons why the resemblance of the temples of Angkor to the pattern of the constellation of Draco is accidental and a coincidence and can be explained in all sorts of other ways, but I've put forward my case in as much detail as I can in my work. I think there is a striking resemblance between the basic pattern on the ground and the pattern of the constellation in the sky"

• So it's just a matter of opinion eh Graham? Hey I think Easter Island was a giant drive in cinema! I haven't got any evidence! Follow me, all of you! adamsan 17:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have completely ignored the fact that he says 'in my work'.

Actually, he has quite a deal of evidence. What is ABSOLUTELY clear to me, at this point, is that you've viewed a lot of 'skeptical' half-tries at rebuking Hancock's claims but that you haven't actually read any of the books, or, if you have, you haven't absorbed the information very well before getting caught up in skeptic's hysteria.

I'm reverting to my edit, which has less POV and no pseudoskeptical, pseudointellectual half-arguments, and will be continuing to add information concerning Graham Hancock -- NOT Graham Hancock's Frightened Academic Opponents (go make your own article!) GabrielAPetrie 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended as a repository for incorrect information but hey, I'll play along.

Tell you what, you list some of his evidence and I'll put in some pseudoskepticism. Then you can list some more evidence and I'll rebut with some pseudointellectualism, or maybe a half argument, I haven't decided. Then we can continue until this talk page reaches epic proportions or one of us dies of boredom. I undertake to reference each piece of information I add and hope that you will do the same.

Lety's start with Angor Watt and how only a handful of the 72 major sites there are significant. adamsan 20:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

One more thing the NPOV article on Pseudoscience states:

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. adamsan 20:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that you aren't allowing the minority (Hancock's) view to be represented, at all. I'll have to come back to editing this page sometime when either (a) you grow up (b) some higher wiki authority intervenes to ensure this is an article about Graham Hancock, not about your student angst. Personally, I think (a) will arrive sooner than you'll get bored and/or 'epic'. GabrielAPetrie 21:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The deal is that we represent the minority angle and then what mainstream science thinks. What we don't do is add our own rebuttals. Putting Hancock's own evidence and defence from verifiable sources in there is fine but not one's own ideas or unsubstantiated claims that he's a victim of an academic conspiracy. That comes under original research and will be removed. adamsan 10:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

September 2005 edits

To the two anonymous editors (one apparently an admirer of the man and one who seems not to be) are making a lot of changes that are either unverifiable, original research or lacking in the NPOV. Certain of the claims could be considered vandalism. Please be aware that the claims you are making, either that Hancock is a genius or a charlatan, need to be verifiable and will be scrutinised for their wiki-ness. Regards. adamsan 12:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite one instance when, where, and how Graham Hancock has called himself an archaeologist? Can you cite one example how he has mislead the public? Or is this just your mantra, Mr. Adamsan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.179.101 (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware that the article has ever said that he described himself as an archaeologist. Other people have called him a pseudo-archaeologist so we can say that and apparently he calls himself a writer so we can say that too. He does study the material past but if he feels strongly that he isn't an archaeologist then we don't call him one- because I'm pretty sure nobody else has described him as one either. adamsan 09:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Despite your double-speak, can you answer the question in regards to how his material has mislead the public? Can you cite an example where he has done so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.179.101 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

BBC 2's Horizon programme examining his claims about Angkor Wat are an example of him selectively manipulating data. It's in the article and further information from both sides is provided in the links at the bottom. I would be pleased to discuss this question further but I am really not sure what you are getting at. A Wikipedia article can only report what other verifiable sources have said on a topic with am emphasis on scientific orthodoxy. That Hancock suggests archaeological knowledge is wrong and that others have questioned the grounds for these suggestions is not in doubt. If you have problems with this article's neutrality then please provide further details. adamsan 08:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Adamsan have you even read any of Mr. Hancock's work? Or you just sit in front of the television playing devil's advocate games? If you would read some of his work you will realize that Mr. Hancock sites all his sources, he provides the evidence and his interpretation of that work. He doesn't say "This is IT!" He says take a look, perhaps this would be another explaination. He never has claimed to be an archaeologist, he has a long career as a journalist and writer. Here is some more information about his bio which this site seems to be missing: "Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, Hancock's early years were spent in India, where his father worked as a surgeon. Later he went to school and university in the northern English city of Durham and graduated from Durham University in 1973 with First Class Honours in Sociology. He went on to pursue a career in quality journalism, writing for many of Britain's leading newspapers including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. He was co-editor of New Internationalist magazine from 1976-1979 and East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983." source www.grahamhancock.com/biog.htm. By the way, you every work at the Times? How about the Economist? You don't work there being a "pseudo-archaeologist" or a pseudo anything for that matter. Look its fine you have an opinion just please make it an educated opinion and read some of his work which includes Supernatural, Lords of Poverty, Talisman - The Sacred Cities and The Secret Faith, Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilisation, Heaven's Mirror, The Mars Mystery, Keeper of Genesis, Fingerprints of the Gods, and The Sign and the Seal. source www.grahamhancock.com/library/bookshop.php. By the way I personally feel many of the things said on this site about Graham Hancock border on slanderous, to think people will use this place as a means of researching information! God forbid, I know from this post alone I will never use anything on this site for a reference because its not reliable, or unbiased about the information it posts. May as will have a propaganda machine for the nuts out there. I realize the pseudo-human running this part of the site is biased and will probably delete this post because its not supporting HIS few of Graham Hancock, what does that say about your encyclopedia PEOPLE! Regards, Thothlibrarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC) (talk)

You have still failed to answer the question, Mr. Adamsan. I'll ask it again: Can you cite anything referenced in any of his books that misrepresents said data and thus misleads the public? Can you show where he has deinitively claimed that he has solved anything? Or do you just wish to spout off ad hominems? Please cite one...just one example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC) (talk)

The biographic information you mention was in the article last time I looked at it. If the other anonymous editor, who seems less sympathetic to your views, has taken it out I will re-insert in immediately but perhaps you should target your insults other than entirely at me. I have limited access to the wiki at present and an unable to check every edit.

You are quite correct that I have not read one of Mr Hancock's books and I can assure you I have no intention of doing so. My contact with his work comes from viewing the two television series he made for Channel 4 in the United Kingdom in which he used dubious evidence to ask spurious questions that combined together to suggest his 10,000 year old civilisation existed without exploring the explanations offered by orthodox archaeology. You may find the above sentence inflammatory but we are here to report what mainstream science thinks about subjects and the external links have provided support for this view. Archaeologists do find Hancock's claims that he is "only asking questions" to be increasingly disingenuous given that his theories have not acknowledged the legitimate criticisms that have been levelled at them. Hence the accusations of pseudoscience.

I am unsure which parts of the article could be considered slanderous and ask once again that you name the sections that trouble you so we can discuss them

Regarding the final question, you have changed the wording somewhat from your initial request and I am unable now to accede to the challenge due to not having read one of his books. I feel the earlier example from his television programme provides an example of Hancock's claims/questions/solutions or whatever you want to call them, their refutation and the industry he has created around them. adamsan 07:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Adamson: "You are quite correct that I have not read one of Mr Hancock's books and I can assure you I have no intention of doing so."

My point to you sir/madam, is for someone to have an opinion on a intellectual subject such as what Hancock discusses they should at least be done with a tiny bit of actual reading. You seem to have taken a near-jerk reaction to a television show and based your entire assumption on the 45 minutes you sat and watched. No active participation on your part, expand your mind by picking up a book. Then come here and talk about it with some smiggen of education. Until then how can anyone take you seriously.

And two seperate people posted myself, (slanderous) and another who asked the same question I did. But wrote completely differently than myself which you can tell because of writing style. (redundent see redudent under redunent in the dictionary....a joke...)

I guess if this really mattered Graham Hancock would have responded to you personally, I suspect he might have and you being biased erased the post...could be wrong....but whatever. I think you will be hearing from him, sooner or later.

Regards, Thothlibrarian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Mr. Adamsan wrote: "You are quite correct that I have not read one of Mr Hancock's books and I can assure you I have no intention of doing so."

You have thus tipped your hand. You are nothing more than a protaganist and an ill educated one as well, Mr. Adamsan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (talk)

I look forward to being contacted by Mr Hancock as this page would provide a splendid opportunity for him to answer many of the questions that have been raised about his work but which he prefers not to address. As with many of Hancock's readers who have come here in the past, you have mistaken me for someone who is trying to suppress and slander him. In fact I have asked above for his supporters to go into greater detail regarding his evidence, including citations, so that we might discuss them. Despite having apparently read his books, none of his admirers seem to be familiar enough with Hancock's work to précis it here for someone as ill-read as myself. I am thus reduced to reading what he and his friends write on the internet and then reading critiques of his work in archaeological and scientific journals and again, on the web, in order to inform my impressions of the man's work.

This essay for example is an admirably polite refutation of Fingerprints of the Gods which, considering it demonstrates that Hancock is unable to carry out even the simplest research and continues to publish incorrect information long after he has been alerted to it being wrong, is something of a feat. I wonder, does one really need to read his books when there is so much of his material available in so many media? And so much commentary on his work too? Do I need to have visited Julliberrie's Grave to write an encyclopaedia article about it? Perhaps however these are questions that are much bigger than this article alone.

You don't need to have visited it but if you want to comment on the inscription then you should at least have read it! 195.153.45.54 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway my friends, I look forward to reading some more of Hancock's evidence, either here or elsewhere and then using my own library and the considerable archaeological resources I have access to at work, in producing an encyclopaedic summary of it. Until the next time. adamsan 17:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You might want to include one (or more) of his books on that reading list before giving us another one-sided commentary. The article is about Graham Hancock and his work - not about Adamsan's ill-researched point of view on a subject he has little or no interest in finding out more about. 195.153.45.54 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The essay mentioned in the paragraph above is disingenious. Mr Hancock's theories about WHY an extinction took place are far less important as the ramifications of what that meant globally to humankind at the time. Nevertheless, we can dissect them here:

1, The first item listed in the conclusion is easly shown to be nonsense. "The floral remains found inside the mammoths and in the surrounding environment could not be from plants which can adapt to the cold" There are varying degrees of "cold". Evergreen plants have adapted to the cold but there are places too cold for them. Reindeer can also survive extremely cold temperatures but there are places which are too cold for reindeer to survive. The real flaw in the essays statement is that any drop in teperature does not necessarily indicate extremely high teperatures before hand!

2, The conclusion goes on to state "The dates of frozen mammoths carcasses would be clustered in the couple of thousand years following the Last Glacial Maximum". Which is exactly the evidence that the article itself seems to be presenting just prior to the conclusion section!

3, The third point made is that "No mammoths would have survived the Earth Crustal Displacement-induced cataclysm". Why not? This argument seems to have been plucked from the air and doesn't seem relevant to the issue at all. Hancock's arguments clearly revolve around whether or not a cataclysm took place and NOT on what caused it or on whether there were any surviving mammoths.

4&5, The fourth and fifth points are also out of context. Mr Hancock's theories about WHY an extinction took place are far less important as the ramifications of what he believes the global impact was to humankind at the time.

The essay uses similar unprofessional methods to those which Mr Hancock's critics have previously accused him. Anyone who takes the essay as anything approaching a serious rebuttal of *any* of Mr Hancock's work has vastly overlooked the obvious flaws latent in the essay itself. Flaws which demonstrably run deeper through this essay than any flaws the article may hope to have exposed in Mr Hancock's work 195.153.45.54 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

November 2005 Edits

I've read one of his books - The Sign and the Seal, in which he talks about the Ark of the Covenant being secreted in Ethiopia. He does know Ethiopia very well, having lived and worked there as a journalist for many years (he was a "native" guide for Michael Palin when he passed through the country in Pole To Pole, in fact). Although an intriguing idea, his entire premise is based upon an unlikely chain of assumptions and coincidences.

I don't think the term pseudoarchaeologist really fits Hancock. I'd call him a pseudohistorian. Lianachan 09:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think this is inaccurate. I've read The Sign and the Seal and the first half of Fingerprints of the Gods. The former was interesting, if perhaps overly speculative, but the latter was outright fantasy. As much as I wanted to believe in his premise, Fingerprints of the Gods uses arbitrary selection of data points to match up with his hypothesis. The book had me, at times, literally yelling at it "Why that conclusion? Why not, say, coincidence?"
  
  The fact that he uses archeology to rewrite history really does place him more in the realm of historian than archeologist, pseudo- or not.
  
  This being said, I think it would be fair to mention the pros and cons against him. --Pyran 22:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

From the wiki article Great Sphinx of Giza:

In recent years professor Robert M. Schoch of Boston University, Colin Reader and other geologists have pointed out that the Sphinx displays evidence of prolonged water erosion. Egypt's last significant rainy period ended during the third millennium BC, and these geologists have posited that the amount of water erosion evident on the Sphinx indicates a construction date no later than the sixth or fifth millennia BC,

And this article:

Although at least one geologist, Robert M. Schoch, supports and early date for its construction based on his analysis of the effects of water erosion on the statue, his proposed date is no earlier than the 6th millennium BC, nowhere near the timeframe claimed by Hancock.

This seems misleading to me. Surely, many different theories about the noticed erosion are possible, but Schoch's theory is unjustly presented here as marginal. The criticisam of Hancock still stands of course.

this article:

Their analyses, which agree with the conventional dating for the monument, attribute the apparently accelerated wear on it to modern industrial pollution, limestone from different sources being used by the initial builders, scouring by wind-borne sand, and/or temperature changes causing the stone to crack.

Article about Colin Reader:

His studies of the Sphinx have contributed to a debate on the outer fringes of archaeology regarding the date of the monument and suggest it can be attributed to being built the within the conventionally-defined period, albeit a few centuries earlier than presently agreed.

Even few centuries seems an interesing info to me (not a short period at all!!), and I see no mention of further debate about this dating. If thats the 'accepted' theory, even then, egyptology should accept and find a place for that date, and not the traditional one. -aryah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.133.41 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Return to England?

The article states that he was born in Edinb., was abroad, and returned to England (not "Britain"). This means he was in England after being in Scotland but before going abroad. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunno. However, being Robert Schoch's webmaster at one time, I can say with some knowledge that the above statements in regards to his work on the Great Sphinx is a bit obscure. Schoch's conclusions about the dates are 7000-5000 BC. Colin Reader has told me in the past that he does support Schoch's water erosion hypothesis, but, Colin keeps his dates within dynastic times.

Schoch's main concern is that if his data proves correct (hopefully we wil find out sometime early next year, now that John West has obtained 60% of the funding), he has to contend with who carved it, if not the Ancient Egyptians. Colin doesn't have to worry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.179.101 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As for Graham Hancock, I have been given evidence that he has misrepresented a couple of people's work. One wrote a rather vicious response and can be found at http://www.hallofmaat.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.179.101 (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"England" was replaced recently with "UK", this should cover matters. As for Schoch, it'd be good to have a cite where he states the specific time period in which he places the construction, if you know of one. I gather however that the statement in the article is essentially correct, ie that he does not support (or his evidence does not support) as early a construction date as 10500BC, which is the time period which Hancock suggests is associated with with the alleged "Orion Belt" theory (and presumably also when the Sphinx was built by his (unnamed) Atlanteans)? Actually it's not too clear whether Hancock says this was when the Sphinx was built, or whether it was constructed later but in the "knowledge" of the constellational orientations of that time. I've seen that Hancock now "accepts" that the Pyramids were built in dynastic times, but alleges they had foreknowledge of this earlier epoch.--cjllw | TALK 04:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

>>As for Schoch, it'd be good to have a cite where he states the specific time period in which he places the construction, if you know of one.

I had all of that when I was successfully running his site. Now, he has teamed with a snakeoil and junk science peddler and his site's stats have went down miserably. It is still http://www.robertschoch.net, however, you will see more of Collette Dowell's material posted than his.

>>I gather however that the statement in the article is essentially correct, ie that he does not support (or his evidence does not support) as early a construction date as 10500BC, which is the time period which Hancock suggests is associated with with the alleged "Orion Belt" theory (and presumably also when the Sphinx was built by his (unnamed) Atlanteans)?

At the time that I was his webmaster, he did not support the 10,500BC dates that Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval proffer. I do know that Schoch does not support any Atlantis style civilizations. Unfortunately, these two have jumped on his data concerning the Great Sphinx to bolster their assertions. This was unintended fallout, however, it does appear that Schoch has jumped on the band wagon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.179.101 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, if Schoch's site is currently evasive on his actual proposed dating, perhaps some third-party reference can be found instead which mentions it. It also seems that Colin Reader's views might be misrepresented here, or at least not clearly enunciated- will look for some references to clarify.--cjllw | TALK 23:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Go here: http://www.antiquityofman.com/Schoch_redating.html and here: http://www.antiquityofman.com/Schoch_conference.html. I have Colin Reader's lates paper on his data concerning the dating of the Great Sphinx somewhere. If I find it, I'll upload it to my site and post the link on my message board at http://www.pastorigins.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.179.101 (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I've updated the passage re Schoch to reflect the date range he quotes in his 1999 paper.--cjllw | TALK 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but, I have to eat my words that I noted above. It would appear that Dr. Schoch does in fact support a lost civilization See here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.179.101 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. It would seem that, having rubbed shoulders with Hancock, Bauval et al Schoch may have come to share in their realisation that speculative narratives proposing radical revisions of accepted history sell more books and are easier to write than more scientific accounts subject to peer verification standards. Perhaps this is being a little unkind, for Schoch does seem to possess an ability to entertain speculations without necessarily coming directly out in favour of them, and no doubt his feelings of "spiritual connections" are genuine enough. In that link you posted above one has to read most of the way through before he divulges that he agrees that the formations are natural erosional features, not manmade; nevertheless he then proceeds to tout for his upcoming guided tour of the region.

After some more research, apparently Schoch has come up with his own particular angle to cash in on public appetite for hidden progenitor pyramid-building world-influencing civilizations, in his 2003 book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders. Atlanteans, Africans, and aliens having already been used, his contention is that some civilization originating in (the now conveniently submerged) Sundaland are the ones who spread throughout the globe with their advanced technology to inspire the later Sumer, Egypt, China, Peru, etc. Some skerrick of scientific accountability must remain within him, though, since he uses 6000-4000BC as the date range (perhaps to tie in with his dating of the Sphinx), and according to [a review he posts on his site, "...In the end, however, even he admits his evidence of a Sundaland protocivilization is speculative". So it would seem that he's happy enough to play it both ways –raise speculations (and sell books) associated with the Hancock/Bauval/West bandwagon without actually putting his hand up as a supporter of their material, or being too clear on what he really believes. Not really the mark of a reliable source, IMO.--cjllw | TALK 23:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have summed it up quite nicely and deserves to be placed on the front page of his entry on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.179.101 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Updating Information

The article states that he will be attending a conference in 2005. It being 2006 now, anyone know if he actually attended or not? --Pyran 10:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

some changes

I have changed the title of this section from "BBC Horizon refutation", to "BBC Horizon controversy" since the programme merely presented a critical appraisal of Hancock's ideas and cannot be considered as definitive. Even the complaints commission finding in the programme's favour on most points only means that they considered the programme to have been fair rather than good or correct. That is, the assessment the commission made was an assement of the programme's fairness rather than it's quality or veracity. Moreover, it is by no means only Hancock who feels that programme was a poor attempt at refutation - several independent commentators have claimed that the programme did not really do justice to the theories it was attempting to critique.

I have also changed the start of the section dealing with the BBC Horizon refutation from "Hancock's ideas have been refuted on numerous occasions" to "Many attempts have been made to refute some of Hancock's ideas". The main reason for this is that the original text suggested that all of Hancock's ideas have all been refuted on many occassions,whereas all that has actually happened is that some/many (but not all) of Hancock's ideas have been the subject of attempted refutations (possible successful, possibly not). I think the new text gives a clearer impression of what has actually happened. Davkal 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I hace changed a section about the sphinx relating to the point about limestone being used from different sources by the builders to "qualitative differences between the layers of limestone in the monument itself". The reason I have done this is that since the Sphinx was carved out of rock that was already there rather than built, the rock couldn't really have come from different sources. The point that those who disagree with Hancock make, as I understand it, is that there are many different layers in the original rock and some of these, e.g. the ones from which the body is carved, are not as good as others, e.g, the rock from which the head is carved.Davkal 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also made numerous small changes which I believe give a better balance to the article. The one major change not noted above is the inclusion of a response to Krupp's objection the the Giza correlation theory.Davkal 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No real issues with most of those changes. I didn't really see the problem with the term "refutation", since something can be refuted (in the sense that it is shown to be mistaken or at least unconvincing, to the satisfaction of those specialists who have looked into it), even if Hancock et al deny the results. The other difficulty is with that quoted 'response' to Krupp- the source it comes from seems to be some non-notable blogger with an off-kilter webpresence, and nothing to at all to do with the debate. It's not even a particularly clever, relevant or honest assessment, and IMO should be removed. The 'upside-down' objection of Krupp's (actually much more telling than the present article and that quote lets on) is not the main one in any case. Among other things, Hancock/Bauval initially claimed the angles between the three main giza pyramids were an "unbelievably precise" match for the angles between the three stars of Orion's Belt as they appeared c 10,500 BCE- Krupp demonstrated in his planetarium that they were mistaken. There are quite a few other specific points addressed by Krupp and others which could bear mentioning here.--cjllw | TALK 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Have taken out the stuff about Hamlet but I think something should probably be said inasmuch as there are a few Egyptologists who are willing to accept the main gist of the argument that the pyramids match Orion's Belt while not perhaps buying the 10500 bc stuff. I also think that Krupp's argument as stated is a rather weak one and the Hamlet "argument" sort of shows why - that is, it is only really valid if you know exactly what the Egyptians might have been trying to do with such a "replication", what type of projection they used, if at all, etc. In any, event, I'll take the Hamlet stuff out and leave Krupp alone for now. As regards the refutation issue, how about, "Some of Hancock's arguments have been refuted". Although I am loath to agree with the notion that Horizon did it since the programme really was quite poor in the way they went about things. For example, the gave Robert Schoch airtime to say he thought the Yonaguni "monument" was natural but didn't allow him airtime to support the older Sphinx theory - as the only scientist in the world agreeing with this theory that reflects a bit poorly on Horizon. Davkal 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Davkal, and thanks for removing that non-notable quote. Personally, I think that Krupp and others' pointing out that the layout of the Giza pyramids is "upside-down" if it is supposed to be some sort of celestial map of Orion's Belt is not a weak argument on their part, but rather more so on the part of Hancock, Bauval, & co. Their initial claims include statements like "...the three pyramids were an unbelievably precise terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion's belt"— Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods, 1995, p.375; emphasis added), and so it seems to be these writers who are firstly claiming that they "know exactly what the Egyptians might have been trying to do with such a 'replication'", not Krupp. The orientation of the pyramids is relevant if we are to consider their further claim, that "...the pattern of stars that is 'frozen' on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical 'Age of Leo'" (The Mars Mystery, p.189). If that is the case, then by rights the Sphinx should be located on the opposite side of the Nile ("the Milky Way") to preserve the relative positions of the constellations of Leo and Orion with respect to the Milky Way. If for some reason the ancient Egyptians ignored this relative disposition, then there seems to be absolutely no basis to claim some "unbelievably precise" ground-map of the sky at Giza- if this "map" does not have to represent objects in their actual relative spatial distributions, then indeed any random selection of points could be made to "fit" this speculation, as pointed out in the Horizon programme.

Krupp (a qualified astronomer) and others like Anthony Fairall have documented quite a few problems for Hancock's claims other than this particular one, and these could well be mentioned here also. For example, the basis of the "Orion Correlation Theory" (OCT) as I understand it is that the angles between the three main Giza pyramids and North are supposed to be a "precise" match with the corresponding angles of the three stars in Orion's Belt and North (as it appeared c. 10500 BCE). Instead of using freeware astronomical software like those authors apparently did, Krupp used his planetarium to wind back the night sky to this period and found that the "match" was not precise, or even close. Again, claiming three points on the ground represent three points in the sky precisely would seem to be, on its own, something rather meaningless and undemonstrable. I think that "some of Hancock's arguments have been refuted" would be acceptable, given the counter-evidence, but then again what precisely are the arguments used by Hancock et. al. can be difficult to determine, as they seem to change from one publication to the next.

As far as there being a few Egyptologists prepared to countenance some form of the Orion correlation with the Giza pyramids, I'm not sure who these may be- perhaps I.E.S. Edwards? He is sometimes put forward by Bauval as one who has said (of Bauval) "In my opinion he has made a number of interesting discoveries", but then Bauval himself admits that this statement is not an endorsement of the OCT, and that Edwards would not have been supportive of the idea associating these structures with the 10th millennium BCE.--cjllw | TALK 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the point about Hancock having no formal training in archaeology from his biography to the initial info about him. I'm not sure someone's bio is the place for details of things they haven't done but accept that the point, given his area of work, should be made somewhere. I also intend to put quite a bit more detail in his bio when I get the time. Davkal 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to the Horizon section since I felt the way it was worded before made it look like the BSC had found no unfairness in the claim that Hancock was an intellectual fraudster etc. This is not really what the BSC adjudicated on. The section now reads more in line with what actually happened inasmuch as the BSC did conclude that the programme makers had acted in good faith but not that they were correct, nor that they actually had presented H as an intellectual fraudster, nor that that claim was true or false.

I have also removed the whole section on current activities since it is out of date. The full section is reproduced below and can be put back in when updated.

"Current activities

This article or section needs to be updated. Parts of this article or section have been identified as no longer being up to date.

Please update the article to reflect recent events, and remove this template when finished.

Hancock will be participating in late 2005 in the Conference on Precession and Ancient Knowledge organized by the Binary Research Institute. Among the subjects discussed will be the theory that the Sun has a binary star companion which is responsible for the precession of the equinoxes. This is directly related to the ancient concept of the yugas, which Hancock has written about in several of his books." Davkal 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I have changed the last part of the opening section from "often criticised [...] Hancock prefers to describe himself as nothing more than a writer" to

"Often criticised for being a pseudoarchaeologist, Hancock, who freely admits he has received no formal training in archaeology, sees himself as providing a counterbalance to what percieves as the unquestioned acceptance and support given to orthodox views by the education system, the media, and by society at large."

This paraphrases what Hancock says about himself on his website. Davkal 11:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, paraphrase of Hancock's view of himself seems fine. I have also expanded upon the counterclaim arguments put forward by Krupp and Anthony Fairall. As it stands perhaps the debate concerning the OCT is disproportionately covered, but it seems important to quote both Krupp and Fairall since they were the experts quoted in the BBC programme. Not sure about that image you have attached though - the license would indicate that you created it yourself- is this meant to be a schematic illustration, or is it a copy/redrawing of a diagram provided by Hancock, Bauval, or..? It lacks the information as to the source of the layout and relative distances and angles between the pyramids was obtained, how it is scaled and rotated, etc. I've annotated the caption since it does not seem to me that it can be maintained that this is an authentic and independently validated scale-diagram.--cjllw | TALK 10:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did create it myself - the picture is a combination of a photo of the three belt stars of Orion with the outline of the pyramids simply drawn over a satellite photo - the relative sizes and angles between the pyramids are therefore about as exact as possible. I don't think that the claim "has been inverted" should be included in the caption because that is to presuppose stuff from Krupp's claim that I think is a reasonable point of debate. I have changed it to "rotated" since I feel "rotated and scaled" better reflects what has been done. I have also simply called it a representation rather than a "schematic" representaion.Davkal 10:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes from around the OCT headline and have removed "so called" before the OCT. There is no reason to say so-called before something that is a name because, as my mother always pointed out to me, it's not so-called x because it is called x.Davkal 12:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I do think the section on the OCT is too long now. I also think that we should remeber this is an article on Hancock and not an article about the refutation, or otherwise, of his ideas. Nonetheless, it is important that it is noted that he receives little support (and direct oposition) from orthodox scientists, but I think it should still be possible to include this, and most of the points made, in a shortened fashion. Davkal 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK with the caption change as far as that goes, but strictly speaking that composite image might constitute 'original research', contrary to wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. I'm not casting any aspersions about your integrity or draftmanship, but since by nature the product of any wikipedia editor is not independently verifiable, there's no way to check whether or not that representation is accurate. It might be better to show a side-by-side comparison of the original images (independently verifiable, presuming source is given), however quite possibly the satellite shot of the pyramids you traced is ineligible under copyright grounds- depends on its source, many NASA, Space Shuttle (and even ESA I think, not sure) images are in the public domain, so if it's one of those then that could be done (the source should indicate the copyright status). Failing that, the image at least needs to be described as for illustrative or suggestive purposes only, and not an actual measured depiction- which could not be verified given its origin.

I wrote "so-called" since it's more of an informal nickname than a formal name for the theory (I'm not even sure that Hancock, Gilbert or Bauval even called it that originally, it's just how it seems to be referred to on occasion). But no matter.

I tend to agree that now there is perhaps too much relative emphasis on the OCT debate, which is really more associated with Bauval than Hancock anyway. Hancock has made a good many other claims in his books, which for completeness could be summarised documented here also (along with their counterarguments, where these have been documented). The reader will need to understand what exactly are the nature and content of his works as a writer (since that is what he is known for), but like for any writer they need to be accompanied with the context on how the works are received/perceived. I guess the OCT debate is a fair chunk of Hancock's notoriety, however, so it would be a case of expanding on his other works and ideas, rather than paring down the latter by much. Maybe if the OCT was moved to its own article then a little more reduction could be done. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 12:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph, support from academics

The opening paragraph states: "...his methods and conclusions have found little support among orthodox academics."

I think this should be "...his methods and conclusions have found no support among orthodox academics."

or "...his methods and conclusions have found little support among academics."

personally I prefer the second version. If there is nu argument against I'll make the change. Pukkie 10:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to the second vesion (little support among academics), but I'm not sure you can immediately label someone unorthodox simply because they agree with something Hancock has said. Rabert Schoch, for example, was (maybe not now) a perfectly orthodox geologist who simply happened to support the the idea of an older sphinx from a perfectly orthodox geological perspective. I therefore think the original point could stand but, as noted, I have no objection to your second version.Davkal 11:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed it to the second version, that is I deleted the wordt orthodox. Pukkie 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OCT star map upside down?

There's a signed section in the article by "(Conman 2002)" It's the section about the claims that the map of the line of stars in Orion's belt is upside down AND Leo is at the wrong side of the sky. Well, that's what *would* happen if you held the map upside down - and so it proves nothing. As a rebuttal it seems to say "We're going to ignore one of the key points of your argument and thus..."

As such, it's completely irrelevant to this article, which isn't even about OCT, it's about Hancock himself. 195.153.45.54 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Book Updates (2009)

I have added a book to the list: Supernatural: Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind (2007) and added the U.K. title for Underworld (Underworld: Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age).0s1r1s (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Little support

I changed "no support" among academics to "little support" since the former is obviously false (e.g., Robert Schoch supports his older sphinx claim). Schochtactics (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the line from the article "The theory of an older Sphinx has received significantly more support from mainstream science".Schochtactics (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from now - "little support" should stay, I suppose. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural

I'd be surprised if it isn't possible to find enough resources to support the notability of Supernatural, so I thought it worth starting a section to assemble the resources.

There is a review in the Fortean Times I can dig out and Gary Lachman has reviewed in for The Guardian [2].

Anymore? (Emperor (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC))

Wording in lead

There needs to be a balance between avoiding the trap of giving equal validity and implying that Hancock's work is junk science. Hancock's work is not peer reviewed, despite selling millions of books. Not all theories about the ancient world are equally valid, and Erich von Däniken made similar claims that were not accepted by mainstream archaeologists back in the 1960s and 70s.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And 'ancient mysteries' unqualified is pretty clearly pov. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reworded to "ancient history", which is more neutral and uncontroversial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Ancient myths" is better, since Graham Hancock attempts to "convert" these into alternate history - now there's another one of his interests - theorising about alternate histories that are not accepted by mainstream historians and archaeologists Lung salad (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Ancient myths" was listed in the sentence twice so I changed it to "mysteries". Anyway I don't see what the problem is with "ancient mysteries"? This is a good description of what Hancock writes about. Also, 'mysteries' and 'myths' are two different things. Pyramids and stone monuments etc are real, solid objects, they are not 'myths'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.122.47 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Main thing is that Graham Hancock is categorised under pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology - and this is not pov since he is considered a square peg in a round hole by accepted mainstream scholarship. Lung salad (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

everyone keeps forgetting, Hancock is a RESEARCH JOURNALIST and now novel writer. He's just doing what all journalist do, see something, research it till they feel vindicated by sources then write about it. Now where he pisses people off is that he states clearly that the orthodox scientific community is a fraud. This is an opinion, one i agree with but an opinion non the less. Just like everything you see and hear on fox or cnn are also opinions. Wiki clearly states truth or fact are not what wiki is about, its just about sourcing large publications. Meaning wiki is a great place to find out what works have been done and what those works are about. whether those works are accurate to fact or not is IRRELEVANT. the subjects must be clearly stated either way with out opinion, which most wiki users seem incapable of, which is why wiki is useless. just a reminder in case u didnt know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.234.118 (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how the wording in this article is allowed by wikipedia. a lot of it seems to be written by someone with a personal hatred for Graham. It just comes off as a biased attack. It's one thing to be critical but this is an unprofessional attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.90.119 (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't personally hate Hancock, having never met him. The current wording in the WP:LEAD points out that his theories are not accepted by mainstream academic researchers, which is not a violation of WP:NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor grammatical edits or clarification of language

Made a minor change to make a statement in the introduction clearer and more specific, and thereby more accurate: Changed the characterization that this individual's theories are rejected "by scientists" to rejected "by some scientists" (in the introductory paragraph of this article) since the footnotes associated with this statement do not make sweeping generalizations regarding all scientist's opinion on this matter. Effectively a grammar correction to improve accuracy. 70.83.19.228 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A couple of reviews of Magicians of the Gods

See [3] and [4]. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graham Hancock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203134301/http://www.csicop.org/sb/9603/origins.html to http://www.csicop.org/sb/9603/origins.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504102244/http://www.antiquityofman.com/hancock.html to http://www.grahamhancock.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC) 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 [5]. 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,[6] 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.[7] 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.[8][9][[10][11][12][13]. 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.[14] 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)

"Pseudoscientific theories"

I haven't contributed to Wikipedia in nine years, but this annoyed me enough to cause me to reactivate my account. It is not so much the use of this term (although I don't think it appropriate for Hancock), but the prominence in the article. I guess the page has been captured by some "Skeptic" science groupie, pub bore atheist type. Anyway, it stinks of a very much non-neutral point of view, rather than an objective statement. I know you won't change it, but anyway, you should...it leaps out of the page as biased. That's all....see you in another nine years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liger~enwiki (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources saying they are not pseudoscientific, out with them. If you don't: You are right, we won't change the article because you disagree with what it says. Look up what WP:NPOV really says (you misunderstand it), and also read WP:FRINGE and WP:LUNATIC. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Very sad that the moderators of this page are relinquishing all responsibility of the burden of proof. There are clearly egos being threatened by something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.100.194 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)