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)