Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a239fcf25817c465

Jump to content

Talk:Flint Dibble

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Cameron Renton in topic Cancer Mention
[edit]

The link to his official page at Cardiff is dead. Kdammers (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I tried to fix it by running the archive bot on the page, but I'm not sure it has an archive... Joe (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No okay, found and added it manually. Joe (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Personal attacks

[edit]

There's zero reason to insert ad hominem attacks in this article. Flint Dibble is clearly incompetent when it comes to engineering and machining, but no one's calling him a pseudoengineer when he steps outside of his area of competence. Similarly, Graham Hancock might have some crackpot theories, but respectable publications don't publish personal attacks like this. 69.180.15.57 (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying that Archaeological Review isn't a respectable publication? Doug Weller talk 11:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
That Hancock is a pseudoarcheologist is clearly established by reliable sources. It is the consensus opinion of archeologists and editors on this page. This has been discussed a lot. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cancer Mention

[edit]

In the Debate with Graham Hancock section, the last sentence mentions a previous debate was canceled "when Dibble was told his cancer had returned," but this is the first mention of his cancer in the article. It would make more sense if his cancer diagnosis and history were included earlier in the article. Thoughts on such an addition, or a separate section entirely on his history with cancer? Cameron Renton (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply