Talk:Graham Hancock

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

Graham Bruce Hancock (born 2 August 1950)[1] is a British writer who promotes a further investigation into an ancient civilization. [4] Hancock proposes that a civilization existed during the last Ice Age possessing technology, in regards to their knowledge of astronomy, magalithic stone work, geography and sea travel. Most of this civilizations progress was destroyed following comet impacts around 12,900 years ago, at the onset of the Younger Dryas. He speculates that survivors of this cataclysm passed on their knowledge to primitive hunter-gatherers around the world, giving rise to all the earliest known civilizations 2001:56A:7113:9F00:256B:54B7:B584:F392 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

See all the talk page comments already about this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024 (2)

My request is simple.....this page is not objective.. Graham Hancock is a journalist..the description of him as a pseudoscientist begins the article with an overt bias....whatever he believes or advocates should be described before critiques are ordered below in a criticisms section...to begin by discrediting him renders the article 'pseudoencyclopedic' The page is more polemic than description or evaluation there is a dangerous misuse of narratives attempting to connect Mr Hancock with racism while there is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion. Whoever wrote this page did not do so in the spirit of the philosophy of science. I do not want to edit this page personally I want someone to ammend it accordingly. 81.132.255.64 (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2024 (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. The "pseudoscientific" adjective on the opening sentence references two sources (the inline citations "") and reflects the Pseudoarchaeology section, which has even more sources. ObserveOwl 🎄 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2024

I don't believe that Graham Handcock is correct. However, neither do I see archaeology as omniscient. The tone of this article is still too severe. It is not balanced, being structured much as its author alleges and rightly identifies, much of Mr Hancock's work to be. I mean citation sixteen? What kind of actual research has been done to establish changes in the perspectives of the Joe Rogan audience after the Hanncock Dibble interview? Just because and academic said that this occurred in their opinion does not mean it did. Even if Mr Hancock is perhaps misguided, it is doubtful that his motives are anything but honest and true. Are there any academics who support his work to any degree? In the interest of balance, even if they are a minority and even perhaps obscure? Mr Hancock never actually claims to have found anything! Rather he seems interested in pushing back the archaeological clock, ever deepening the void in which his mysterious lost civilisation is purported to lie; the material he presents is interesting and our realisation of the antiquity of the human species is growing. Agriculture does begin 12000 years ago even if its got nothing to do with seafaring shamen.

Mr Hancock's impact is likely to have introduced many people to discoveries in archaeology, which would have remained at the margins of popular interest.

Most viewers or readers will recognise the often self confessed limitations of Mr Hanncocks work. A rare bigot may see the work as a means of establishing rhetoric such as those prevalent in Nazi or imperial archaeology but those individuals will find their justifications wherever they can.

This article is not to me a proper encyclopedia entry; it has bitter overtones and seems almost to villianise Mr Hancock.

What's there to be scared of? It must be a fear or perhaps a sense of anger that drives the writing of a page like this!

Lastly, Mr Hancock and Mr Dibble seemed to get on quite well after some personal tensions, which needed working out. I can away endeared to both men and grateful for all the information that they shared.

And I think that would be the response of most people...while you cite their long discussion as powerful evidence of Mr Hancock's inaccuracy your page lacks its nuance entirely and has none of the humanity... Please... will you sort this out for everyone?

Regards Andrew 81.132.255.64 (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"it is doubtful that his motives are anything but honest and true" I suspect that Hancock has similarities with Erich von Däniken. Popularizing both fringe ideas and actual archaeological findings while in pursuit of fame and fortune for himself. What sets him ahead of the pack of pseudoarcheologists is that Hancock has some actual skill in storytelling. Dimadick (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Racial violence, white supremacy, QAnon shaman, January 6th insurrection

Should something be added about Hancock's contribution to the above, based on: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371119850_Apocalypse_Not_Archaeologists_Respond_to_Pseudoarchaeology

Something like: "Graham Hancock has been implicated in the January 6th insurrection because he is one of the main ideological influences [motivators?] on one of the insurrection leaders."

Then: "Graham Hancock, through his pseudoarcheological theories, directly contributes to racial violence against minorities and the dissemination of white supremacist ideas."

Perhaps the sentences need a rewrite, but that's the gist of it. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No as he is not directly responsible, and this is a BLP. We would need more than one good quality source. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This honestly seems like a stretch and almost like a caricature of the archaeological criticism against Hancock. I personally think it's undue. There's no evidence of a connection between Chansely being influenced by Hancock ( elaborated on at https://bonesstonesandbooks.com/2021/01/13/pseudoarchaeology-at-the-capitol/ , where Hancock is cited as but one of several influences) and his decision to participate in Jan 6, and the blog post doesn't suggest this either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I was simply going by what an WP:RS said. The only other direct connection between Hancock and white supremacism I was able to find was an article by Flint Dibble (author of the paper above), "Hancock and other pseudoarchaeologists center White Europeans as able creators while chalking up the accomplishments of other peoples to outside influences: the Atlantis civilization, aliens, lizard people, or the “lost” empire of Tartaria. Real archaeology inoculates people against the online and in-person racists who take Hancock’s polished presentation of a mysterious civilization and twist it into overt white supremacy."

You're right, seems like less of a serious claim and more of a one person's crusade against Hancock. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

To paraphrase, Hancock contributes some droppings to the pile that nurtures a batshit-crazy growth of ideas including the idea that one "race" is best. But it's an indirect and tangential connection, and we have only one RS that asserts it. I agree with Hemiauchenia, it's WP:UNDUE here and now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Even still, I think the proposed wordings Graham Hancock has been implicated in the January 6th insurrection because he is one of the main ideological influences [motivators?] on one of the insurrection leaders." and Graham Hancock, through his pseudoarcheological theories, directly contributes to racial violence against minorities and the dissemination of white supremacist ideas are total misrepresentations of what the source says. The cited article (Hoopes, Dibble and Feagans (2023)) says nothing of the sort. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

"Stephanie Halmhofer (2021), for example, has documented the effects that pseudoarcheology, including the work of British author Graham Hancock, had on the thinking of Jacob Chansley, the "QAnon Shaman" who participated in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol in Washigton, DC. The real-world impact of pseudoarcheology is readily apparent."

"Throughout Fingerprints of the Gods, Hancock identifies Quetzalcoatl and Viracocha, foreign heroes, as white and/or Caucasian, citing Ignatius Donnelly (1882) and Constance Irwin's Fair Gods and Stone Faces (1963),"

"While the intent of these authors is unclear, pseudoarchaeology often supports and reinforces ideologies of racial superiority and white nationalism, therefore potentially contributing to violence and injustice against Black and Indigenous people as well as other people of color. The false assertion that all complex societies had a unitary origin in a superor, white, European, colonising culture reinforces systemic racism. The claim that such a civilisation served as the basis for "whote saviors" who spread "civilizing" knowledge through diffusion and/or hyper-diffusion reinforces racism." TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Stephanie Halmhofer (2021) is a WP:BLOG post,[2] hence not a WP:RS.
• The racist implications are already addressed in the wiki article.

Neither of the sources says that Hancock specifically has been implicated in the January 6th insurrection, nor that he directly contributes to racial violence against minorities and the dissemination of white supremacist ideas. Hypnôs (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Stephanie Halmhofer (2021) is a WP:BLOG post,[2] hence not a WP:RS."

I am quoting the Dibble SAA article, which is a WP:RS.

"Neither of the sources says that Hancock specifically "has been implicated in the January 6th insurrection", nor that he "directly contributes to racial violence against minorities and the dissemination of white supremacist ideas.""

You're right, poor choice of wording.

How about

Hancock is cited as part of the ideological inspiration for at least one January 6th insurrectionist.

And

Hancock's pseudoarcheological theories, such as hyper-diffusion and Atlantis, often support and reinforce ideologies of racial superiority and white nationalism, therefore potentially contributing to violence and injustice against Black and Indigenous people as well as other people of color.

The authors of the SAA paper certainly wish to link Hancock the pseudoarchaeologist who promotes hyperdiffusion and January 6th insurrection and white supremacy. The question is whether we include it in the article (and how) or not.

This idea is echoed and repeated in several other WP:RS:

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/graham-hancock-joe-rogan-archaeology/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/atlantis-myth-plato-archaeology-falseTurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Since Halmhofer came up: in a book published in September, she writes how Hancock's work has been welcomed and used by far-right actors, detailing the case of Patrick Chouinard and Hardy Lloyd. Her point is that "pseudoarchaeological narratives need not be explicitly far-right in nature for them to support far-right ideologies and worldviews". However, she describes how those two lament Hancock isn't a white supremacist (and to their eyes, may be "anti-white") while juicing specific bits of his writing to support their ideology.

It seems to me the far right propagandists who use his stuff see him more as a useful idiot than an ally. I'm not sure that's worth including in Hancock's article. The conspiracist mind tends to aggregate whatever it comes across into its delusions; I don't think it's worth teasing away every element of that mad collage.

Also, I blame Joe Rogan. Robincantin (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the January 6 link meets WP:DUE or WP:BLP. Blaming Hancock for the wackier political antics of other people is rather unfair, although there is plenty of RS saying that his work is problematic because it promotes theories that could be seen as downplaying the role of non-white indigenous cultures. This is also a common criticism of Erich von Däniken's work.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I try not to let my personal opinion affect my edits, I go by what WP:RS say. The SAA paper is WP:RS and that was my attempt to include its thesis into the article since the paper is about Hancock and his Ancient Apocalypse show.

I thought my second formulations were appropriate for a WP:FRINGE article. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

References