This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofArchaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience,pseudoscience,pseudohistory,conspiracy theories, andskepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion.To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The "citation needed" tag was recently removed and two citations inserted to support the use of the word "pseudoarchaeology" in the lead paragraph. However, there are two problems with these citations:
The first cited source does not meetWP:RS. The article author Vittoria Benzine "is a Brooklyn-based journalist covering contemporary art with a focus on storytelling, counterculture, and magic." Not exactly what I would call a reliable archaeological source.
Not exactly what I would call a reliable archaeological source – how exactly have you reached that conclusion? I don't see a problem with it.
Grünschloß doesn't say pseudoarchaeological specifically, but repeatedly refers to AA and Hancock's work in general as 'pseudo-scientific' and 'pseudo-academic', which is equivalent. In particular he has this quote:
These few examples already show that Hancock’s handling of sources is clearlysub-academic – despite the recognizable attempt to imitate scientific writing and argumentation superficially in form, with many (even if faulty) footnotes and references. Concerning his formal intention, Hancock works clearly recognizably in a deliberatepseudo-scientific pose.
Other sources already cited use the word 'pseudoarchaeological' specifically but I like this one because it's an academic not a press source and it explicitly discusses the classification of his work and rebuts Hancock's claims to be doing journalism. Really, there is zero ambiguity in sources about calling this pseudoarchaeological – the citations are only there to satisfy your requests. – Joe (talk)07:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear cut case of failingWP:RS on several criteria.
By her own admission, she states that her focus is on storytelling, counterculture, and magic. No mention of archaeology, never mind providing any credentials. For an online encyclopedia article, she is clearly notWP:RS. She does not meet any ofWP:SCHOLARSHIP. She also meets the criteria ofWP:NEWSOPED and so is not a reliable source by this measure as well.
The second source is fine for other things, but it doesn't mention the word "pseudoarchaelogy" and so it cannot be used as a source for that particular word.Arkenstrone (talk)23:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a scholarly source. Nobody is claiming it is. She is a journalist writing in a reliable publication and it is normal for journalists to write on a range of topics on which they do not have special expertise; that's sort of the point of journalism.
We do not need a source for every specific word we use. The source states unambiguously that this documentary is a "pseudoscientific" and "pseudoacademic" work about archaeology. Do you disagree that this, logically, makes it a work of pseudoarchaeology? – Joe (talk)07:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that GH's works promote pseudoscientific/pseudoarchaeological/pseudohistorical claims is supported by many high quality sources (see the main article about the author) that were written beforeAncient Apocalypse was aired. The statement thatAncient Apocalypse is just another piece in his oeuvre that yet again repeats these pseudoarchaeological claims is not an exeptional one that would need anexceptional source. –Austronesier (talk)20:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If what you say is true, then provide a reliable high quality sourceWP:RS that specifically speaks about GH engaging in "pseudoarchaeology" WITHOUT doing original research yourself by making inferencesWP:OR such as pseudoscientific = pseudohistorical = pseudoarchaeological.Arkenstrone (talk)04:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is notWP:RS for a "journalist" writing an op-ed to have her views/opinions about archaeology cited as a reliable source for an online encyclopedia. Especially when she claims her areas of focus are storytelling, counterculture, and magic. She is clearly out of her domain of expertise. Real journalists who specialize, for example, in archaeology with credentials and track record in a reliable publication can be cited as a reliable source.
The word "pseudoarchaeology" definitely requires a source since it is a powerful word with very specific meaning, it appears in the first paragraph and sets the stage for the rest of the article. A word like "controversial" has a more general meaning, is less forceful, and more readily accepted without a specific source.
You are engaging inWP:OR by making logical inferences as you are above. That is not our job as editors. We simply report the facts as provided by reliable sources.Arkenstrone (talk)04:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Benzine is not writing "her views/opinions about archaeology" butreporting on what the Society for American Archaeology and other archaeologists have said about this series, which is that it is pseudoarchaeology. Your conclusion that she is not a "real journalist" because of what her byline is arbitrary and baseless (you might consider that thearchaeology of magic is a thing) and verging on aWP:BLP violation, so please be careful of that.
Inferring that "pseudoscientific" and "pseudoacademic" work on "archaeology" can be paraphrased as "pseudoarchaeology" is not original research. – Joe (talk)08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YourWP:BLP comment israther ridiculous not relevant. We're not writing a biography of Benzine. We're determining if she is a reliable source as perWP:RS. She doesn't have any credentials or credibility, so anything she has to say is irrelevant in an online encyclopedia, whether factual or not. It would be like citing some random person even if what they say happens to be factual and corroborated by experts. Why cite the random person then? Cite the expert.
It's original research because the word "pseudoarchaeology" has not been used by a credentialed source in a reliable publication (prove me wrong!) to describe GH. You are making inferences. If someone asked you: "who said GH was specifically engaging in 'pseudoarchaeology'?" could you provide a reliable source and quotation? As far as I am aware, no, you could not. Which is why that word should be removed or changed. It is not our job to make inferences or get into people's heads regarding what we think they mean. We simply report notable facts from reliable sources,in their own words.Arkenstrone (talk)18:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Please provide substantive rationale for your reversion. "No consensus" is not a sufficient explanation. Benzine is clearly notWP:RS per the discussion in the previous section. Other editors removed this citation in the lead paragraph and it was accepted. I simply extended the spirit of that change by removing Benzine from the 3 remaining citations in the article. In any case, a change that corrects a violation of Wikipedia policy does not require consensus.Arkenstrone (talk)00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the source in the lead regarding the word "Pseudoarchaeology" merely to end the unfruitful discussion.
The Benzine article is about a dispute regarding a Netflix show (Ancient Apocalypse). For that, she does not need a background in archaeology to be a reliable source. It falls underWikipedia:Reliable_sources#Fringe_theories.
Her article is used as a source for:
The name of the production company, the release date, and that it's a Netflix release
That the SAA objected to Netflix's classification of the show
First,Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Fringe_theories +WP:PARITY doesn't apply in this context, becausethere are plenty of reliable sources that speak to this issue. No need to include a random person's views on this issue as a source. It only applies when there are no sources that are typically considered reliable sources:
"Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia."
Second, using Benzine as a source for the name of the production company, the release date, and that it's a Netflix release, is not appropriate since a more suitable source for this purpose is already being used (Moore).
Third, there is no need to use Benzine as a source for the SAA objecting to Netflix's classification of the show, since the articlealready cites the SAA letter directly for this purpose.
Fourth, it is factually incorrect to use Benzine as a source for the quotation of the SAA, since 1) that quote does not appear in her article, and 2) the SAA is already cited directly! Why cite some random person who cites the SAA, when you can cite the SAA directly?
As you can see, there is no rational justification for using Benzineat all, when much better and more reliable sources exist and are already being used. It just comes across as desperate padding and stacking of unreliable sources that are irrelevant.Arkenstrone (talk)22:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that we are going in circles. Some progress has been made to clean up the sloppy use of sources as your statement indicates. I am here now hoping to work towards a consensus. Would you please tell me what, if anything, you find objectionable about the remaining 3 points I made immediately above?Arkenstrone (talk)00:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a consensus for keeping Benzine as a source. Four people are in favor, and one (you) opposed.
To address the other points:
1. Nothing cited from Benzine is a view/opinion, only facts about the show are cited. (See previous comments.)
2. Having an additional source is preferable, and artnet is a RS for the content it is cited for.
1. As I already mentioned, anything Benzine says is irrelevant, whether it's views, opinions or facts, because she's an unreliable source as perWP:RS.
2. Artnet is fine when the citation is coming from a reliable source that is a domain expert. But Benzine isn't, as her credentials show that she "is a Brooklyn-based journalist covering contemporary art with a focus on storytelling, counterculture, and magic." She is not an expert on anything related to archaeology.
3. By that reasoning, you can cite a dozen random people who in turn cite the SAA letter, when all you need to do is cite the SAA letter directly and/or cite areliable secondary source which sites the SAA letter.
I’d like to propose a small but meaningful revision to improve the neutrality of theAncient Apocalypse article, particularly in how it addresses Graham Hancock’s engagement with theYounger Dryas Impact Hypothesis.
Currently, the article leans heavily on framing Hancock as apseudoarchaeologist, which is understandable given scholarly critiques. However, it does not fairly acknowledge that part ofAncient Apocalypse deals with anongoing, legitimate scientific debate: theYounger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, which has been examined in peer-reviewed journals, includingPNAS andNature Scientific Reports.
While Hancock’s broader claims remain controversial, it would bemore balanced to differentiate his engagement with this hypothesis from broader critiques of his theories. I propose adding the followingneutral clarification to an appropriate section of the article:
The series explores the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, which suggests that a cosmic impact around 12,800 years ago triggered abrupt climate change. While the hypothesis remains debated, some of its elements—such as platinum anomalies and nanodiamond evidence—have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals[1][2]. Critics argue that Hancock extrapolates from this research to support his broader claims of a lost civilization, which remains unverified.
Moore, C. R., et al. (2017). "Widespread platinum anomaly supports a cosmic impact at the Younger Dryas onset."Nature Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11157-5.
Kennett, J. P., et al. (2009). "Nanodiamonds in Younger Dryas boundary sediments indicate a cosmic impact."PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.0906374106.
References
^Moore, C. R., et al. (2017). "Widespread platinum anomaly supports a cosmic impact at the Younger Dryas onset."Nature Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11157-5.
^Kennett, J. P., et al. (2009). "Nanodiamonds in Younger Dryas boundary sediments indicate a cosmic impact."PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.0906374106.
Itpreserves existing scholarly critiques of Hancock while ensuring his engagement with a real scientific debate is acknowledged.
Itdifferentiates between established criticism of his lost civilization theory and the fact thatAncient Apocalypse does touch on an area ofactive research.
Itdoes not advocate for Hancock but simply aligns the article with Wikipedia’sNeutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
Also it seems to be the series is about a lost civilization and not just theYounger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (about 8,000 years before civilization).Slatersteven (talk)15:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this supposed to be a joke? I have nothing against the article, but don't include it in this. If 'Atlanteans' existed, they were not white. White Caucasians were evolving in what is now Ukraine. Graham Hancock never claimed that white people built all the native structures in North America. The natives were probably the descendants of that hypothetical civilization.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)16:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief in obsolete concepts, eg caucasians, let alone your using the insult "woke", doesnt convince me you know what you are taling about. By the way, there is an article aboutArchaeology and racism. 17:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byDoug Weller (talk •contribs)
Caucasians, Indo-Europeans, white people—whatever. The pre-Indo-Europeans were brown. If there was an 'Atlantic' civilization, they were brown, like Native Americans. Is it racist to suggest that another brown-skinned civilization built many monuments across half the world—Malta, Turkey, Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, and the US?Wyatt Abernathy (talk)21:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing your own conclusions is not what Wikipedia is based on.WP:RS is what Wikipedia is based on. You can think whatever you want on Atlanteans, unicorns, or gremlins, but it is not relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk)06:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Hob Gadling. This is what the documentaries are about. The accusation of racism comes from the fact that many people think Graham Hancock is claiming that white people from Europe or somewhere else built North American monuments like the Serpent Mound. My argument is that the hypothetical Atlanteans — or whoever they were — were probably not white, because 'white people' didn't exist yet. Or, if they did, they were likely living somewhere between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. Given that, why does the article include 'Archaeological racism' in the 'See also' section? It doesn’t make sense.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)07:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wyatt Abernathy t doesn't seem that you have read the article. It says "Experts in Pacific geography and archaeology characterized Hancock's claims about Nan Madol as "incredibly insulting to the ancestors of the Pohnpeian [islanders] that did create these structures", linking them to 19th century "racist" and "white supremacist" ideologies". Nothing to do with your Atlanteans.Doug Wellertalk08:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: "I read the article and watched the series. Tell me where in the series Graham Hancock claimed that Nan Madol was built by white people".Wyatt Abernathy (talk)10:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypnôs This isn't even tangential. Graham Hancock doesn't even talk about race. Is it considered tangential just because it's 'archaeological'? Then you might as well add the same article to the 'See also' section of every archaeology-related article. This 'See also' link is just there to attack Graham Hancock.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)10:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The show is about Hancock proposing that the achievements of peoples all over the world are really that of a superior civilization, just like some archaeologist did in the past as described inArchaeology and racism.Hypnôs (talk)11:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 'superior' white or European civilization? That’s not what Hancock is suggesting. He never claimed they were white. For a theory to be racist, it must imply racial superiority or difference. But in this case, the natives could simply be the descendants of that ancient civilization.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)11:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a theory to be racist, it must imply racial superiority or difference. If you have a reliable source for this contention contrary to the reliable source already present in our article, feel free to provide it.jps (talk)17:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. It does not matter what you or I or anybody else on this talk page conclude about colors of Atlanteans.Wikipedia is based only on what reliable sources say. If they say it's racist, we say that they say it's racist. We do not add to the article "but the Wikipedia user Wyatt Abernathy disagrees with that because blah blah" and we do not delete stuff because you do not like it. Please read the rules, especiallyWP:RS andWP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk)12:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about whether I like it or not — it's an attack. Hancock never claimed that Quetzalcoatl was white. The 'Reception' section reads more like an essay against Graham Hancock than an objective summary. It's not neutral at all. A truly neutral section would include both positive and negative critiques of the series, not just a one-sided attempt to discredit him. @Hob Gadling go and checkWP:NPOV.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)13:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your 121 edits haven't given you enough experience to understand our policy. That's not your fault, it's just inevitable that there is a learning curve and you haven't edited much in fields where this is an issue. Part ofWP:NPOV isWP:UNDUE which you should read as well asWikipedia:Fringe theories.
"History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, by relying on lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities to force their views on others. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will inadvertently legitimize and promote baseless and/or evil ideas.
Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV."Doug Wellertalk14:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He never said directly that he was white, yes. Not saying things directly is not surprising. And the article doesn't say he claimed that Quetzalcoatl was white. You need to read things more carefully. It actually says "German scholar Andreas Grünschloß describes Hancock as misrepresenting Indigenous traditions to support his ideas, for example the descriptions of Quetzalcoatl as "white", which were a Spanish colonial invention."Doug Wellertalk14:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not active on English Wikipedia, but I do contribute to the Spanish Wikipedia. I know the rules, and I've also studied a lot of the archaeological evidence and the patterns — and even found additional coincidences myself. This is not about race; it's about truth. Flat Earth has no foundation — this does. To be honest, there seems to be a campaign in the Anglosphere to discredit Graham Hancock, and it continues on Wikipedia.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)14:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the policy of "verifiability, not truth," but that approach risks excluding legitimate ideas simply because they challenge academic orthodoxy. Graham Hancock's views are controversial, yes—but they are widely known, debated, and deserve to be presented neutrally, not dismissed outright. Verifiability should not become a tool for gatekeeping, especially when applied selectively. Wikipedia should reflect intellectual diversity, not just institutional consensus.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Local rules govern each Wiki project. No two are exactly the same. Both the Spanish and English approach are compatible with WMF policy. If you disagree with the English model, you will need to do the same thing any of us: lobby for changes to policy (not on the article talk) but on the relevant article talk page. In this case I think that isWP:V? Good luck. --Very Polite Person (talk)17:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I’m aware that WP:V is policy, and I respect that. My point isn't to override it, but to question how it's being applied in practice—especially when "verifiable" criticisms are included, but equally verifiable defenses or alternative views are excluded. That’s not a policy issue; it’s a neutrality issue. WP:NPOV should apply regardless of the article's topic. Still, I appreciate the pointer—I'll look into the relevant policy pages.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m familiar with WP:FALSEBALANCE, but it’s meant to prevent giving fringe ideas equal weight, not to erase them entirely or present them only through hostile sources. A neutral article can acknowledge controversy without legitimizing pseudoscience. In Hancock's case, the coverage often crosses into editorial bias rather than neutral summary. That’s what I’m pointing out.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not suggesting Wikipedia should whitewash or hide criticism —only that articles should reflect the full picture. WP:SPADE allows clear language when well-sourced, but it doesn’t justify omitting context or opposing views that are also verifiable. Labeling something as pseudoscience is fine—as long as the presentation remains neutral and doesn't slide into polemics.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hancock's views aren't omitted, there are multiple articles that tell readers what they are. And then they are put in context.Hypnôs (talk)17:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I agree that Hancock’s views are mentioned and contextualized in multiple articles. My concern is more about how they are presented—whether the coverage fairly reflects the controversy and doesn’t unduly favor critical or dismissive sources without properly representing his supporters and the public interest in his work. Neutrality isn’t just about presence but also about balanced tone.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a very simplistic view of racism. Whether these putative Atlanteans were "white" or not is irrelevant to whether the idea is racist. The idea that all these real ancient civilizations would need help from an outside group of superior ancients is racist regardless of whether that outside group was white, black, or pink with purple polka dots.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)11:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Reception section mostly cites reliable sources that criticize Hancock for associations with racist or white supremacist ideas, especially regarding his misrepresentation of Indigenous traditions. However, explicit reliable sources defending Hancock against accusations of masking racist claims are scarce or absent.
The closest opposing views come from commentators like James Delingpole, who supports Hancock’s ideas and criticizes the series for its portrayal of him, though he doesn’t directly address the racism charge. Additionally, Hancock’s broad popular following, which does not publicly associate his work with racism, might be noted if supported by reliable sources.
In summary, the article reflects the weight of reliable sources available, which predominantly highlight the racist claim concerns, while explicitly sourced defenses against those claims are minimal or lacking.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few official or reliable sources that support Hancock’s views, but this does not exempt the article from maintaining a neutral tone and balanced presentation. Even when criticism predominates, the language used should remain respectful and avoid dismissive or loaded terms, in order to comply with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. A fair and measured approach improves the article’s credibility and ensures it serves readers seeking information rather than opinion. And of course, this also means removing “Archaeological racism” from the “See also” section.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you do this -- copy/paste to here with the {{tq|quote}} template one (1) sentence in the currently live article that you think is problematic. Maybe we're not understanding your position.
Reply here with the specific line you have a problem with, unchanged--as it is live. So we can control-F see that sentence in context, in the article.
Then, in your same reply to me, again in a {{tq|quote}} template, share your revision suggest that is compliant withlocal to en.wikipedia.org rules and policies. Maybe that will help. Please do that next. --Very Polite Person (talk)17:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your polite and constructive approach. Here is an example from the current article I find problematic:
“the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists.”
My suggested revision, respecting Wikipedia’s policies and neutral point of view, would be:
“The theory has been criticized by some experts who associate it with controversial interpretations related to racial ideologies; however, these claims are debated and the topic remains contested among scholars.”
This wording is more balanced and avoids presenting these serious accusations as undisputed facts, better reflecting the complexity of the discourse.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a prime example forWP:SPADE#In articles. You were asked for reliable sources that support your view and you have not provided a single one. So why would it say it "remains contested among scholars"?Hypnôs (talk)18:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. My intent wasn't to claim scholarly consensus in Hancock’s favor—clearly, that doesn’t exist. What I’m asking is simply that we tone down rhetoric and avoid passing judgment in Wikipedia’s voice. Neutrality doesn’t require equal weight to fringe views, but it does require avoiding a prosecutorial tone. That’s why I suggested wording like “his claims have been widely criticized by archaeologists,” rather than phrasing that implies unanimous dismissal or moral condemnation.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)19:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't tone your particular example down since it is a quote.
I suggest you try to find reliable sources we can include as a counterbalance, if they exist. Otherwise the implication of unanimous dismissal may be warranted.Hypnôs (talk)19:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough regarding the quote. I’ve actually searched for reliable sources offering a different perspective, but apart from a paywalled article in The Economist, I haven’t found anything substantial from academic or high-quality mainstream outlets. That said, I still think this lack of counterbalance isn’t a reason to keep language that sounds editorial or aggressive. Even when there’s consensus, Wikipedia should aim for a neutral and encyclopedic tone. I appreciate your feedback.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)19:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, if he has been accused of racism, you have to have an RS contesting the claim for us to remove it. In the same way, we relect what the RS say, so produce some RS that support his claims. Those are the only ways you will "win" this argument, not by badgering us.Slatersteven (talk)17:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wyatt Abernathy: Should we also present a "more neutral tone" in theFlat Earth theory article? If everyone who deserves to be taken seriously on a subject say it's bullshit and only crackpots who deserve to be ignored defend it, since WP is based on Reliable Sources, a balanced and neutral synthesis reflects the mainstream POV, which is that it is bullshit. What you are asking for isWP:FALSEBALANCE, as already pointed out.VdSV9•♫20:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about false balance and the need to reflect mainstream reliable sources. My concern isn’t to give fringe views equal weight or legitimacy, but rather to ensure the tone remains neutral and encyclopedic. Unlike something clearly discredited like the Flat Earth theory, Hancock’s claims are presented with some complexity and a following, so the article should avoid sounding dismissive or hostile. Wikipedia’s role isn’t to judge or condemn but to present information factually. Even when consensus is strong, wording can help readers understand the debate fairly.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)20:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are the one who decides which ideas are "clearly discredited" and which are not, because you know better than all the reliable sources in the world.
This is pointless. You do not want to listen, you want to introduce your own OR and POV into the article, overriding the reliable sources. That will not fly. I will just wait until you are blocked and the problem is solved. EOD as far as I am concerned. Do not ping me. --Hob Gadling (talk)21:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep calm. I’m not here to override reliable sources or push my own original research or point of view. My concern is about the tone and neutrality in the article’s language, which is something Wikipedia policies emphasize even when reflecting mainstream views. I respect the role of reliable sources and the community’s consensus, and I’m happy to discuss with evidence and civility. If that’s not possible, I understand. Thank you for your time.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)21:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hancock's claims are "not as impossible" as a flat Earth, but they are equally "clearly discredited". One could say that Flat Earth containssome complexity and a following and it would be just as fallacious as when you said it about Ancient Apocalypse. If we are topresent information factually, as you said, we don't measure words in explaining how factually wrong Hancock's ideas are.VdSV9•♫12:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing Hancock's ideas to flat Earth theory, but that's an exaggeration. Sea levels have risen over 120 meters in the last 20,000 years—vast portions of coastal regions, where early civilizations typically settled, are now underwater and unexplored.
Moreover, there are striking architectural parallels—such as megalithic cyclopean walls—in regions as distant as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and South America. This doesn’t require invoking aliens or giants, just the hypothesis that a seafaring human civilization may have existed before the end of the Ice Age and later succumbed to global cataclysms.
This is a far cry from pseudoscience like flat Earth. It may be speculative, but it's not absurd. Labeling all of it as “clearly discredited” risks closing the door to legitimate inquiry and overlooks the nuances of the debate.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There can be striking architectural parallels between cultures, e.g, megalithic cyclopean walls, because there are only so many ways certain engineering problems involved with building walls of stone be solved in an efficient manner. It is like saying that different cultures using vehicles with round wheels is a striking cultural parallel. At its absurdest, the same argument can say that dolphins were genetically engineered by an lost advanced alien race because of their striking morphologic parallels to extinct marine reptiles in their adaption to an aquatic lifestyle.Paul H. (talk)20:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point in principle—convergent solutions to engineering problems do happen. But the degree of similarity in certain polygonal masonry styles, construction techniques, and even cosmological themes across distant cultures sometimes goes beyond what pure functionality would predict. That doesn’t prove Hancock right, of course—but that’s not the point.
The issue here isn't about validating Hancock’s ideas, but about the tone and neutrality of the article. Labelling his views as “clearly discredited” without room for nuance may violate WP:NPOV. We’re not debating whether his theories are correct—we’re asking that the language reflect a neutral presentation rather than a polemic one.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)10:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn’t just the presence or absence of reliable sources supporting Hancock’s views—it’s the tone and framing of the entire section. Right now, it reads more like a coordinated effort to discredit him than a neutral presentation of how his ideas have been received.
Even in the absence of strong academic support for Hancock, the language could be revised to follow a more neutral, encyclopedic tone—as per WP:NPOV. That doesn’t mean removing criticisms, but it does mean avoiding editorializing or undue emphasis that goes beyond what the sources actually say.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)11:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can if the BULk (or the implication is all) RS say X we do not say "Y as well" in the name ofWP:FALSEBALANCE, we say X. So untill you come forward with some RS suporting what you are arguing for, stop.Slatersteven (talk)11:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You repeated this multiple times already. We are approachingWP:DEADHORSE territory.
How about you post here on the talk page everything you would change in X to Y format (no generalizations).
The series Ancient Apocalypse has received significant criticism from archaeologists and experts, who argue that the theories presented by Graham Hancock are not supported by the archaeological consensus and lack sufficient evidence. The Society for American Archaeology issued a public letter requesting that Netflix reclassify the show from "documentary" to "science fiction", stating that the series promotes disinformation, misrepresents the field of archaeology, and echoes ideas historically associated with fringe or extremist ideologies.[9][16][17] The letter also expressed concern that the program undermines the work of professional archaeologists and misrepresents Indigenous histories.
Flint Dibble, an archaeologist, noted that the series presents Hancock's theory without robust evidence, while existing archaeological data contradict many of the dates proposed.[3] John Hoopes, who has published on pseudoarchaeology, observed that the series does not offer alternative interpretations or counter-evidence to Hancock’s claims.[4] David Connolly commented that Hancock selectively uses genuine research alongside speculative ideas, creating a misleading narrative.[17] Dr. Colin Elder, from the University of Salford, stated that the series relies heavily on voices that support Hancock's perspective, without adequate engagement with scholarly counterpoints.[17] Julien Riel-Salvatore similarly argued that the central theses of Ancient Apocalypse can be refuted using well-established scientific knowledge, and expressed concern about its potential to undermine critical thinking.[18]
Regarding Hancock's assertion of an academic cover-up, several archaeologists responded that they would in fact welcome compelling evidence of an unknown Ice Age civilization, and would take such claims seriously if properly substantiated.[4][17]
Media outlets also commented on the presentation of the series. Courrier International noted that Hancock criticizes archaeologists on screen without identifying them or addressing their arguments.[19] The Guardian suggested that Netflix may have targeted conspiracy-minded audiences with the series, and speculated about a possible conflict of interest due to Hancock’s son’s position at the company.[20]
Commentary on the tone and messaging of the series has also varied. Jason Colavito described Ancient Apocalypse as casting doubt on scholarly expertise and blending historical speculation with ideological messaging.[21] In The Spectator, James Delingpole—who expressed sympathy for Hancock’s ideas—criticized the production for portraying Hancock as unreliable and for distancing itself from the theories it presents.[22]
German scholar Andreas Grünschloß argued that Hancock misrepresents Indigenous myths—such as the figure of Quetzalcoatl—to fit his narrative, and described Hancock’s work as speculative fiction presented as research.[1] In one episode, Hancock proposes that the Megalithic Temples of Malta date back to the last Ice Age, a claim that has been rejected by Maltese archaeologists based on extensive archaeological evidence.[11] Similarly, scholars of Pacific archaeology criticized the series' treatment of Nan Madol, noting that it ignores Indigenous agency and draws on outdated colonial narratives.[23] Physicist Mark Boslough, writing in Skeptic magazine, challenged the series' reference to the controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.[24]Wyatt Abernathy (talk)11:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since there haven't been any objections to the revised version of the Reception section I posted earlier, and since it preserves all the sources while improving tone and neutrality, is there any opposition to implementing it?
Yes I will, as I have already said NO to any changes unless I say otherwise. This has nothing to do with the issue of Archaeological Racism category. So start a new thread.Slatersteven (talk)11:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will, as I have already said NO to any changes unless I say otherwise.
Yes in response to "since there haven't been any objections to the revised version of the Reception section I posted earlier, and since it preserves all the sources while improving tone and neutrality, is there any opposition to implementing it?", they do not in fact have any thing approaching consensus (and have just said the same thing 15 times), and as such I would revert it (as they has not in fact dealt with anyones basic objectionsWP:FALSEBALANCE").Slatersteven (talk)14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main changes you made were to paraphrase quoted material instead of quoting it directly. In general, I'm supportive of efforts to do that, but I worry that your paraphrases are straying too far from the meaning of the quotation. For example, your proposed "echoes ideas historically associated with fringe or extremist ideologies" does not align well with the source's "long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies". Your proposed "draws on outdated colonial narratives" does not neutrally convey the source's "traced back to "racist philosophies" and "white supremacist ideologies" of the 19th century". I oppose the proposal.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)12:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I completely understand the concern about preserving the integrity of the sources. Let me clarify my intent.
The quotes I adjusted are still based on the same sources and preserve their core message. However, I aimed to paraphrase them in a way that fits better within Wikipedia’s guideline on encyclopedic tone and WP:NPOV. Direct quotes like "white supremacist ideologies" are certainly strong, and when cited properly, valid — but using them excessively and verbatim across multiple instances can give the article a polemical tone, which we should avoid.
That said, I'm not opposed to reintroducing direct quotations in some places where the strength of the source warrants it, especially if consensus favors that. But perhaps a balance can be found: retaining the most critical language in one or two key places, while paraphrasing elsewhere to avoid repetition and tone creep.
Ultimately, my goal isn’t to remove or downplay the criticism, only to make the article read more like an encyclopedia, and less like an editorial.
I’d be happy to tweak the current draft to better reflect your concern, perhaps restoring the original wording in those two specific instances. Would that be a workable compromise?Wyatt Abernathy (talk)12:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're pretty neatly describing the opposite of NPOV. The misunderstanding is making it harder to evaluate your proposal, since each must be evaluate through the lens of "does this change subtly worsen the NPOV". Maybe we could start small. Which of the changes do you think most faithfully reproduces the view of the source?Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)12:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that suggestion. I think that’s a very productive approach.
Let me start with what I believe is the most faithful and least controversial change.
In the original version, this part quotes the Society for American Archaeology stating that the show “has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies”. I proposed: "echoes ideas historically associated with fringe or extremist ideologies".
I can see now how that might water it down more than I intended. So instead, how about:
"Presents theories that have long-standing associations with racist and white supremacist ideologies"
It’s very close to the original language, but placed within our own sentence rather than a blockquote, which can help tone and flow without misrepresenting the source.
I appreciate the concerns raised, and I agree that fidelity to sources must be preserved. However, resistance to improving tone or structure, even when the proposed changes preserve both the factual content and the intent of the sources, risks signaling editorial bias rather than a genuine concern for accuracy or neutrality.
The current version relies heavily on emotionally charged quotations and block-texts. That creates a rhetorical imbalance which, in effect, reinforces a single point of view. Adjusting the language for tone, precision, and neutrality —without removing or altering the core of the critique— is not a dilution; it's an alignment with Wikipedia's core principles of encyclopedic tone and NPOV.
If our goal is to inform rather than persuade, we should aim for clarity, not invective. I’m open to refining any wording that unintentionally strays from the source, but I’d encourage us all to recognize that how information is presented can shape perception just as much as what is said.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)13:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable enough in my genuine concern for accuracy and neutrality that I don't mind the occasional risk that I might be signaling editorial bias. Especially in this case. I think you're saying my resistance to your proposal is giving you such a signal. The exact change we're discussing is:
From: A direct quote saying"the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies"
To: Unquoted material saying"Presents theories that have long-standing associations with racist and white supremacist ideologies"
To me, the suggestion that this improves tone or structure is nonsensical. The suggestion that I might be signaling bias by opposing the change is nonsensical. I prefer not to spend very much time engaging with nonsense, so I'm going to bow out of this discussion, with a final restatement of opposition to the changes proposed so far.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear you are bowing out but I can't blame you. Given that the length of each statement is more or less the same, I can't imagine a good reason not to use the quote.Doug Wellertalk14:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can add Hancock's own response to neo-nazis praising his work?
Thanks, I appreciate the nuance in both your responses. I agree that if the term is kept, adding something like "which Hancock denies" would improve fairness.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)17:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This time waste has gone on long enough, I am out of here with a firm no to whatever is being suggested in this thread (given the goal past shifting) with a firm no, it remains no untill I say otherwise.Slatersteven (talk)11:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve summarized a rewritten version of the Reception section with identical references but a more neutral tone. I’d appreciate constructive input from anyone interested in improving the article under WP:NPOV and avoiding WP:TONE issues. We can keep the discussion focused and concise.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)16:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV does NOT mean "neutral". What tone issues are there? "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner (e.g. use "feel" or "atmosphere" instead of "vibes")." Are we using slang somewhere?Doug Wellertalk16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, but NPOV does mean "neutral point of view", as per WP:NPOV. It’s about fairly representing significant views in proportion to how reliable sources treat them, not just avoiding slang or casual language (that would fall under WP:TONE).
The tone issue I mentioned relates to how the current “Reception” section reads like a series of harsh denunciations without offering a measured summary of the sources. The language used — while sourced, may come across as excessively dismissive, bordering on WP:POV or WP:UNDUE. I’m not advocating for fringe views, just for encyclopedic balance.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)16:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your long experience. I’ve also been editing since 2007, and I know how easily tone and balance issues can creep into articles when there’s strong consensus in one direction. That’s exactly why NPOV exists: not to give fringe ideas false balance, but to ensure we don’t cross into polemical language or disproportionate emphasis. I’m simply advocating for a more encyclopedic tone, not promoting Hancock's ideas. We should judge edits by policy, not by edit counts.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)08:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes use tools to help me express things clearly in English (Spanish is actually my mother tongue) but I fully stand behind my own contributions.Wyatt Abernathy (talk)15:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't use any tool more so you can see the difference. I am good discussing, but not so good in english. I can talk and write it, but not good enough for being took seriosly in a discussion in a foreign language. I use google translator and chatgpt in order to write perfect sentences, but you don't respect my point of view, even doing this (is this forbidden?). Anyways, I don't mind. You win. I hope you have a good life and a good experience using wikipedia. I wish you the best for you all. I am leaving the dicussion. Thanks for taking part on it. Specially to this ones with more neutral point of view. Bye!Wyatt Abernathy (talk)15:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your English is fine insofar as we can understand what you are saying. You do not need LLM. As you can see from people recognizing that you are using LLM, it does not make your English better in the sense of less attackable. If someone attacks people for imperfect non-LLM English, they will get a trout in the face for being a dick, so that is not a big risk. --Hob Gadling (talk)20:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one reasonable would object to use of a LLM to help refine language and grammar, especially for use in a language that's not your mother tongue. I do that myself for some communications.
Suggestion... sit and read this page. Don't reply. I want you to literally just read this section you started again, full text, and consider that I just stuck the raw wiki mark up text into GPT just to get word counts.
Thanks for the comprehension and the suggestion. Maybe I'll take this in the future, in another article, but here the lobby is too strong. Reception section should be rename as Critical recepction or controversy. Best wishes!Wyatt Abernathy (talk)16:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"No one reasonable would object to use of a LLM to help refine language and grammar, especially for use in a language that's not your mother tongue. I do that myself for some communications." For the purposes of communicating facts, no. But when you are arguing about encyclopedic tone and neutral presentation, then I would consider such usage as indicating that you are not competent to have an opinion on the subject. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)16:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
