Talk:Graham Hancock

Intro and creation

The Wikipedia version of this article was heavily biased and relied on mainstream archaeology and scientific reductionist theory to label the author as a pseudoarchaeologist. I would rather that we just tell the reader what Graham Hancock does and let the reader decide if he is a pseudioarchaeologist or a genuine, serious investigator that is unbiased. It should not be the job of an encyclopedia to push a certain viewpoint down the reader's throat, as Wikipedia was definitely doing in 2022 with this article. I have rewritten it. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2023 (CST)

I agree. Derogatory labeling is a sign of bias. If the word "pseudo archaeology" needs to appear, let it be in a quote of someone who has actual credentials saying that. In fact, it might be interesting (if someone gets time and has access to journals online) to look up an actual case of a scholar criticizing this guy, though I like the way you've written it so far here. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (CST)

oh, most of the archaeologists with professional associations have a strong dislike of this guy's ideas. E.g., the Ohio Historical Society, which plays a part in running the Serpent Mound site in central Ohio, refused to even let the Netflix show crew narrated by Graham Hancock set foot on the site. They had a strong bias against his ideas, and did not really try to hide it. I've actually investigated some of the academic criticism, and it can be quite outspoken. These ideas of advanced ancient civilizations are popular with the public, and I think they need a fair airing on an encyclopedia. The status quo and academia is not always right, the plate tectonics theory being a perfect example... a very similar situation occurred in mainstream geology when that idea started to gain traction, let's say 50 or 60 years ago. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2023 (CST)

This illustrates different concepts of neutrality. As WP tends to interpret it nowadays (when thye bother about policy at all), it's based on "reliable" sources. If there's a consensus of those then WP asserts that as unquestioned fact in its own voice, & other POVs, no matter how widely held, may not even be mentioned. Here, Larry maintained what was apparently the original concept: if there are important POVs that "the scientific community" or some such rejects, you just say so. Peter Jackson (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2023 (CST)

Graham is a couple of years older than me and, though I may be wrong, I'd guess he read Chariots of the Gods back in the sixties. That book was one of many influences on a generation which challenged orthodoxy and traditional concepts. There are countless artefacts of unknown origin whose existence cannot be explained. As such, we can only theorise and Graham's thoughts are entirely valid. For the appalling, error-strewn Wikipedia to dismiss Graham as "pseudo" is the height of hypocrisy. Our way forward must be to state facts and present an accurate summary of Graham's theories without opinion, except if there is a worthwhile sourced opinion which adds due weight.

Maybe we should label Wikipedia as a pseudoencyclopaedia? Would we really be wrong? John (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2023 (CDT)

thanks John, I appreciate your input and support. If you post such ideas on Wikipedia Talk pages, you will get viciously put down. I think anything controversial like Graham Hancock's ideas on Wikipedia is often prone to being taken over by those with a reductionist bias.... what's kind of interesting is that scientific reductionist materialism is actually a quasi religion, too... so which religion is correct? Yes, I believe that civilization on this third planet from the sun is not necessarily one of simple linear progression. There may have been advanced civilizations in the past.. cheers,- (Jack S. Byrom's talk page) 19 May 2023

Yes, "pseudoencyclopaedia". Well done. They had a row some time ago on whether certain things that never claim to be scientific, like ghosts, should be described as "pseudoscience" because "reliable" sources say so. That's contrary to common sense, but WP policy is to follow RSs, not common sense, unless there's a "consensus" to IAR. We, at least, don't currently claim to be an encyclopaedia. Peter Jackson (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2023 (CDT)

Larry Sanger recently sent out this link about a rumpus regarding Wikipedia distortions of history on the Holocaust. Wikipedia has allowed massive atrocities to be described in separate articles whose names do not reflect the place where they occurred, and then the articles about those places bury the link to those separate articles in a mountain of historical trivia, and even the disambig pages do the same thing. Two examples: Babi Yar (took place at Kiev) and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camp (took place at Nordhausen). It's that the emphasis is all wrong. Pretty buildings are described with the same amount of emphasis as past mass killings. Kiev was one of the bloodiest locations in the world during WWII (100,000 civilians shot by the Nazis, a third of those Jewish; and maybe 600,000 Soviet troops captured and likely killed), but you'd never know it from reading Wikipedia. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2023 (CDT)

thanks, Pat. That's frightening to learn. I clicked on the link from Chapman University. I am hoping people will become aware of the limitations of Wikipedia and not promote it so blindly everywhere, as they have been doing for the last 10 years. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2023 (CDT)

ArbCom correctly say content disputes are not their job. Years ago they actually asked the "community" in an RfC ([1]) what they thought about content disputes. Never closed. Peter Jackson (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2023 (CDT)

Misinformation is common throughout the site in all subject areas. There are numerous editors who fail to read sources correctly but, because they're regulars, are rarely if ever challenged. Jack is right to say above that criticism of the site is immediately condemned and reverted as "unconstructive" or similar. As for what they consider an RS, they will always support the regular contributor who may not have sufficient expertise to know if a source is reliable and has sufficient content oversight. For example, there's a definite preference for dubious online sources, including blogs and databases, over critically recognised books and journals.

Not long ago, I read an item somewhere that their regulars now number <100,000 and falling. Maybe they should rebrand? As Pseudopedia? John (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (CDT)

Declining numbers contribute to the problems. Many articles are left to languish, getting progressively out of date. Others, a few interested people can do pretty much what they like with, with too few people to enforce policy. Peter Jackson (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2023 (CDT)

[2] is an interesting paper related to some of the above discussion. It seems to have a blatant political bias, repeatedly associating "conservative" with fringe & conspiracy theories, "liberal" (presumably in the American sense of left-wing) with opposition to them. There are plenty of left-wing conspiracy theories too. Peter Jackson (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2023 (CDT)