Talk:Graham Hancock
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Graham Hancock article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Q1: Why does the article say that Hancock's ideas are pseudoscientific?
A1: Hancock has written numerous books and has made television documentaries, but does not submit his work for peer review in mainstream academic journals. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources and do not present theories as valid if they are not supported by experts in the relevant field. When Hancock's work was examined by mainstream archaeologists for the BBC's Horizon documentary series in 1999, academics were critical of aspects of his work, and after a complaint by Hancock and Robert Bauval, the Broadcasting Standards Commission found only one point of unfairness in the documentary.[1]
Hancock has ample opportunities to promote his work through his own channels, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Unless his work undergoes peer review and is accepted in the academic community, it cannot be presented as having equal validity to work that has undergone peer review. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Pseudoscientific" and "pseudo archaeological" "Scientific" and "archaeological", because the man himself clearly stated that he found this ridiculous. G12427 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- He is neither a subject expert or an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Who do his personal opinions matter on the topic? Lostsandwich (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Recent clarification provided by a RS
[edit]I was reverted twice without a WP justifiable reason. I'm open to discussing the RS which I provided. Here is what I want to add for clarification:
- Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". [1]. He has also has expressed support for native rights.[2]
This is absolutely true according to an RS and in line with WP policies. We can exclude the word "defamatory" should there be a consensus, but being accused of being "racist", etc., is certainly defamatory.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- As I noted at RSN, can you provide a reliable source that the SAA has explicitly called Hancock a
racist
andwhite supremicist
, rather than just saying he's promoted ideas that are racist and white supremacist in origin? There's frankly, a massive diffrerence between the two. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC) - Its an SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
RSN discussion
[edit]Regarding the recent edit war, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Joe_Rogan_Experience. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DL1_EMIw6w&t=14479s
- ^ "The Strange and Dangerous Right-Wing Freakout Over Ancient Apocalypse". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2024-04-26.
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- C-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Scotland articles
- Low-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages