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 subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 14 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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. 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.

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.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science.

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.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience

In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2026

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section on Handcock's book Talisman, change "...stating that at the end of the their book they begin..." to "...stating that at the end of the book they begin..." In other words, remove either "the" or "their" so the sentence does not read "of the their book." Cameron Renton (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done Random Person 238 19:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2026

Latest comment: 9 days ago7 comments6 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "pseudoscience to unproven". Judgemental language shouldn't be used in encyclopedias. ~2026-36077-97 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Experts call it pseudoscience. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that pseudoscience is judgemental language. Mr. Hancock does not claim to be a scientist. He is a journalist who makes observations. He is considered controversial by experts because he questions the claims made by expert. The proper response is to use arguments instead of making disqualifying remarks.

What experts are we talking about? Experts on journalism?

Marcel Kwakernaak ~2026-47783-79 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Experts in the subjects he writes about. Wikipedia doesn't 'make arguments'. It reports what those qualified to discuss such matters have to say. Which is that his works are pseudoscience. That's how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The language comes across as very judgemental and negative. If you read/listen to him, he states numerous times that he is not an archeologist or a scientist, but rather a journalist with his own unique opinions. By this logic every person who has a page in Wikipedia and doesn't have mainstream opinions should be called a psuedoscientist. Jefeyay (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Only if they promote pseudoscience. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

And if reliable sources call them that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

This page was redesigned at the edge.

A page that knows where it met you.

Talk:Graham Hancock

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2026

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2026