Talk:Graham Hancock

claims of racism with no evidence?
under the “pseudoarcheology” section it is claimed that hancock is linked to racism and white supremacy, the evidence of which are quotes from people who actively oppose hancock. Why would on a scientific description of a persons career include opinions instead of fact, especially opinions that demean and discredit the career? 216.175.38.109 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia is based primarily on reliable secondary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is false as the page currently written on Graham Hancock is not based on any reliable source as all sources cited here are of biased opinion with no supporting evidence thus not a reliable source even if its written by self proclaimed professionals this interpretation of Grahams work is biased and a insult to Wikipedia and its integrity to uphold the most accurate information 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, "reliable" is not defined as "agrees with the opinion of 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090". Instead, it is defined as described in WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * They seem to be attributed, so they are statements of opinion, not of fact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

False information provided
Hes a journalist not a scientist or archeologist 2605:8D80:6E3:1D35:4CD2:514B:99FB:F090 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Where do we say he is? Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Disingenuous
It's probably not worth adding, but in GH's "debate" with Flint Dibble on Rogan's show, he stated that this Wik article on him was written by one archaeologist and that editing it was blocked. I just checked: its editing is restricted but not blocked, per Wik procedure on controversial living individuals. And there is a host of (often "warring") editors working on this site. 136.36.180.215 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. I watched the interview and was surprised by the claim. If something is contested, a discussion can be opened. The majority of objections went towards the claims of using "racist" sources and not being able to edit that out of Wikipeida (as far as I can remember). I can even see this reddit post . I've personally never been involved in this article. I've just read what the article says, and I can attest it just reports what SAA published. Bilseric (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As his debate with Flint showed time and time again, Hancock isn't afraid to make claims that anyone can easily disprove: more than 50 people have collaborated on this article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think he was referring to the parts that bother him, not the whole article. But at least with reporting who said what, there should be no complaints towards Wiki. Things were said and those are just reported here. Bilseric (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)