Talk:Graham Hancock

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950)[1] is a British writer and investigative journalist who explores theories about ancient civilizations and stories of lost lands. 2605:8D80:564:3EC4:459:4D21:5D46:D424 (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Ok, and? Please describe your changes using a "change x to y" format. Thanks. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Myrealnamm: I assume that 2605:8D80:* is proposing this as a new lead sentence. But I don't think it's consistent with how reliable sources describe Hancock. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hancock describes himself on his website as a journalist, but the key thing that he doesn't do is to submit his work for review in academic journals. If he did, his theories would not be accepted, so he discusses them on The Joe Rogan Experience instead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think their lead sentence is "correct", like as you said. The current lead Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950) is a British writer who promotes pseudoscientific theories about ancient civilizations and hypothetical lost lands. seems fine. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Earlier today I wrote a suggestion that a vocabulary error in the article should be corrected. I referred to the use of the word “theories” in a context where the rules of English usage require "conjectures" (or possibly “hypotheses”). Predictably, the suggestion got deleted, with one of those spurious excuses that self-styled Wikipedians like to wheel out in pursuance of their status-anxieties. Wikipedia vandalism does have the merit of taking pressure off bus stops, so perhaps I should look on the bright side. But wouldn't it be more constructive to look up the word “theory” in a dictionary? 92.9.163.67 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

A theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something.[2] What is the vocabulary error? Hypnôs (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not quite right. You have just described a hypothesis. If a hypothesis withstands efforts to disprove it, and is not in competition with a more widely supported hypothesis, then it gets upgraded to a theory. So, theories are a subset of hypotheses.

But, as the article points out, most archaeologists assert that the emergence of civilizations can be satisfactory explained without recourse to Mr Hancocks ideas. Hence Mr Hancock's ideas are, at best, just one of the various competing hypotheses that have been offered to explain the archaeological evidence.

The distinction between theory and hypothesis is unambiguous, but I do have to admit the the distinction between hypothesis and “conjecture” is harder to describe. I favour “conjecture” over “hypothesis” for Mr Hancock's ideas because hypotheses are generally formulated in response to observed phenomena, whereas conjecture is concerned with what one might observe or measure if one attempted to do so — and Mr Hancock seems to be exhorting archaeologists to dig in places where they don't currently have many observations (sahara desert, sea floor…).

The phrase “pseudoscientific theories” is internally self-contradictory because if something is pseudoscientific, it cannot be a theory. 92.9.163.67 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It's verbatim the definition of theory from the Collins dictionary. I even linked it. Hypnôs (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You're describing a very particular understanding of the words "hypothesis" and "theory" which, while quite widespread (but not universal) in science, is not the common definition of either.[3] Wikipedia is written in plain English for a general readership. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself has articles on the words “theory” and “hypothesis”, so there are really no good excuses for other articles using “theory” in sensationalist tabloid newspaper style. English is my first language, but my thoughts are with readers for whom English is a second language.

Moreover, the subject of the article (Graham Hancock) is frequently accused of being pseudoscientific, and those accusations duly get covered in the article, so it's all the more unhelpful to be the using the word “theory” in a sense that totally inverts the way that his critics use it. 92.9.163.67 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be that speculation nicely covers what he does, he speculates, often with out real evidence. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

If English is your first language then you'll doubtless agree that if you approached someone on the street and said, "my theory is that you don't need a gym if you have stairs", they're unlikely to respond "ACTUALLY UNTIL YOU MAKE A SYSTEMATIC EFFORT TO DISPROVE IT THAT'S JUST A HYPOTHESIS".

"Speculations" is accurate enough but it doesn't really fit in the sentence we're talking about (... is a British writer who promotes pseudoscientific speculations about ancient civilizations and hypothetical lost lands). – Joe (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that “speculation” isn't quite ideal for the sentence. I guess it was edited by someone else who recognizes the absurdity of “pseudoscientific theories”, and was looking for a way to avoid the misleading word.

The article describes how archaeologists are exasperated by Mr Hancock's tendency to proceed backwards from conclusions to evidence. But it does not describe casual street conversations about gyms, so you gym example doesn't help. In an article about someone who is widely criticised for presenting conjecture in a way that makes it look superficially like established theory, inverting the meaning of the word “theory” can only cause confusion. Since Wikipedia itself has an article that describes the existence of two diametrically opposite meanings of the word “theory”, it's deeply weird to pick the meaning that's opposite to the one used by Hancock's critics when those critics' criticisms are what makes up the bulk of the article.

The sensible thing is just to use unambiguous wording. 92.9.163.67 (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, using another Wikipedia article as a source on Wikipedia isn't a great argument to make in this case. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

}92.9.163.67 makes a good point; in science, "theory" describes a well-supported explanation of related observations; Hancock does not produce anything of that sort. We are using it in this article in the more vernacular sense of "a collection of speculations on a theme"; Hancock does produce these. I would like to see us use a word that describes Hancock's approach unambiguously. "Speculation" does strike me as appropriate; what other possibilities can we suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've changed to "ideas", which seems like an unobjectionable choice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Tone

The article and particularly first paragraph come across as somewhat passive-aggressive, particularly in the way it critiques Graham Hancock's ideas and presents his work. While it does describe his theories, the tone implies a judgment of their validity in a way that could be seen as dismissive or condescending.

Here are a few examples of passive-aggressive tone in the passage:

1. "Superficially resemble investigative journalism" – The word "superficially" suggests a negative judgment, implying that Hancock's work only appears like investigative journalism but doesn't actually meet the standards.
2. "Lack accuracy, consistency and impartiality" – This could be seen as an indirect way of saying his work is flawed, rather than just stating it outright. The phrase sounds somewhat like a critique meant to undermine credibility without directly confronting the person.
3. "Portrays himself as a culture hero" – The term "culture hero" can come across as sarcastic or mocking, depending on context, as if implying that Hancock is overinflating his significance.
4. "He has not submitted his writings for scholarly peer review" – While this is a factual statement, it could be framed as a way of implying that Hancock's ideas are not valid or credible because they haven't gone through rigorous academic scrutiny.

In summary, while the passage is largely factual, the language used—especially words like "superficially," "lack," and "culture hero"—carry implicit critiques that feel unscholarly and tone heavy. 174.96.158.84 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The wording is based on the sources used in the article, and it largely reflects the opinions spelled out here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's completely reasonable for the article to document the objections that archaeologists have raised to Mr Hancock's ideas, but Wikipedia convention requires that it do so in a neutral tone. I suspect many archaeologists would cringe at the present tone — which reminds me a lot of student politics. A strength of the article is that it quotes Mr Hancock himself on how he differs from evidence-based researchers, so perhaps future editors can build on that. I don't know if Mr Hancock sees himself as a culture hero, but the angry tone of this article will convince his more suggestible readers/viewers that he is one.

It should be sufficient to present him as the author of some imaginative and entertaining conjectures that the scientific community (archaeologists, climatologists, geologists) regard as being outside the scope of evidence-based research. Nothing to get angry about. 92.8.100.143 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your criticism of the tone of these remarks, and if you can find widespread reliable sources that describe him as presenting "imaginative and entertaining conjectures" I suppose we could consider doing so. (However large his book royalty figures and his Netflix revenue may be, they aren't RS for this point of view.) Alongside, of course, the present consensus of the reality-based community, for which the present tone of the article is bang on target. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree on point 4. Hancock is qualified as and had a career as a journalist. Stating that He has not submitted his writings for scholarly peer review feels like it implies he should have which is somewhat odd. We do not make the same statement about other journalists pages I have read.

P.S. for the IP editors in this thread, I would suggest that you got accounts. I know we claim that IP editors are human too, but the last time an editor with an account actually took that seriously, Nupedia was still a thing... Editors will just assume that you are all the same person, and tend not to take your view into account when determining consensus. Also, if you have a track record of making constructive changes and having constructive discussions, you will be able to edit semi-protected pages like this.

I'd suggest also asking any questions you may have at the Teahouse. The rules can be confusing and experienced editors can come across as terse for new users, but when you get to know us I promise we don't bite.

All the best, ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well if he wants to make scientific claims that is what he needs to do to be taken seriously. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am unaware of any scientific claims he makes. He makes a series of historical claims, but in most context, history is regarded as a humanity, not a science.

Pedantry aside, I think it is an odd contrast with e.g. George Monbiot, who has also (to my knowledge) never submitted his writings for scholarly peer review. But I think (and I hope you would agree) it would be absurd to make that statement on George Monbiot's page as his works are based off interviewing and reporting on the works of scientists and other academics, not being an academic himself. Hancock also describes himself as a journalist (which I think is reasonable, given that is his career experience and qualifications) and interviews people who have submitted papers for peer review (with mixed success). ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I would also ask the question of "taken seriously" by whom? He is clearly taken seriously by a large proportion of the general public, which is who journalistic publications are directed at. He is not taken seriously by the archaeological community, but I don't think he has ever aimed to be. Certainly if he wanted to be, he would need to publish academically, but an academic community is not generally who journalistic publications and and trade non-fiction are aimed at. ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Does Hancock interview and base his findings only on interviews with respected experts? It seems to me that he in fact it at loggerheads with them. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To take a sample from Ancient Apocalypse episodes 1 - 3, Graham interviews:

• Ali Akbar
• Danny Hilman Natawidjaja
• Geoffrey McCafferty
• Marco M. Vigato
• Katya Stroud
• Anton Mifsud
• Lenie Reedijk

Of those, only Marco M. Vigato and Lenie Reedijk do not have 'writings submitted for peer review' with respect to the article being discussed. Now, whether they are respected experts (I believe the archeological community has differing views from interviewee to interviewee) is not really my issue here. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand, does he only interview them? Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That is an exhaustive list of interviewees in Ancient Apocalypse episodes 1 - 3 (unless I have missed one he interviewed briefly). Sorry if that was unclear. ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The question was how does he use them, not if he did them? Does he form opinions only after being told by experts, or does he form them and then interview people who agree with him? Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is plain to see that he came to Ancient Apocalypse with an perspective, but does coming to a story with an perspective disqualify you from being a journalist? To return to George Monbiot as an example, I think he comes to stories with an environmentalist perspective, but that does not mean that he isn't a journalist?

To answer the second part, he doesn't just interview people he agrees with, Stroud disagrees with him, and while McCafferty doesn't appear to have said anything about Ancient Apocalypse since it aired, I don't think he believes in a lost globe spanning civilisation.

But I think this is rather besides the point. Graham does not do original archaeological research, he does not get out a trowel and start digging in the dirt, and claim to have found something. He speaks to people who have done archaeological research and then, in the most part, submitted their papers for peer review, and draws conclusions from them.

Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Does he base his conclusion on what they say, or does he come by them despite what they say, as it seems to me that the archeological consensus is against him? So does he in fact just accept what the experts tell him, or does he in fact inject his own opinions?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hancock is not really a journalist in the normal sense of how that term is understood, but a writer in the paranormal milieu/zeitgeist. Claims of psychic powers including the ability to levitate rocks as well as contacting spiritual beings via hallucinogenic plants is so outside the realm of science and more akin to the claims of someone like Helena Blavatsky that I understand why some scholars of anthropology and new religions have pushed back against the pseudoscience label when referring to Hancock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the term writer would be more applicable (obviously not to his background as co-editor of The New Internationalist or his time as East Africa correspondent for The Economist). I do agree that as he doesn't claim to be an archaeologist and certainly makes no pretence of being a scientists, saying he is a pseudo-scientist would be rather strange. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the argument is that Hancock tries to legitimise his effectively religious claims using cherry picked scientific research, which is what makes it pseudoscientific. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've put in an inter library loan request for the Nova Religio article (apparently Wikipedia's library doesn't have it, nor my university's, nor my friend's university, which raises questions in my mind about how popular Nova Religio is, but that's by the by) and I'll get back to you once I've read it. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of The Conversation

I have made a post asking about the use of The Conversation as a source in this article, which can be found here.

All the best, ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)