Talk:Ancient Apocalypse

Interesting Source

Just came across this from the University of Alberta; seems like good context if nothing else. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

James Delingpole

How is the opinion of this person, known for his anti-scientific stances, relevant to this article? His only possible relation to this series is that he (also) holds fringe beliefs. Under what definition can he be considered a reliable source? Gue101 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The relevance is that his review shows that even anti-science fans of Hancock thought this series was bad. – Joe (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering that the series is a presentation of old-school fringe ideas in the style of Ancient Aliens, I would suspect that the intended audience for it had heart this kind of tale before. Is there any comment by sources on its lack of originality? Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The response from the Society for American Archaeology mentions that Hancocks arguments are just basically the same as Donnelly's and other silly people.

Here's a quote:

"His claim for an advanced, global civilization that existed during the Ice Age and was destroyed by comets is not new. This theory has been presented, debated, and refuted for at least 140 years. It dates to the publication of Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882) and Ragnarok: The Age of Ice and Gravel (1883) by Minnesota congressman Ignatius Donnelly."

Can't we use that instead of anti-science journalists? The "GH is basically Donnelly rehashed" argument was covered on almost every single source that reported on the Society for American Archaeology's response to GH. I can look up for specific sources commenting on that to add them. It'd be way more serious than quoting Delingpole's opinion. Gue101 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not an either–or thing. We can, and should, include all significant points of view. – Joe (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't but agree with this. What we shouldn't do is present a single opinion of a single crazy person as representative of all "right-wingers" or all "supporters of Graham Hancock" or any other broad generalization.

Will work on that. Gue101 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you've adressed why you think it's relevant, even though he thought the documentary was bad because it didn't give enough credit to fringe ideas. But, once more, why is James Delingpole a Reliable Source? Aren't we biased towards accepted science? I contend that he can't be considered a reliable source. I've seen editors in Wikipedia reject media critics because of their allegedly political position, yet we accept a fringe theorist? Why? EDIT: So, I've checked and The Spectator is not considered a RS in wikipedia, it states: "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG." Gue101 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

James Delingpole is a reliable source on what James Delingpole thinks, which is all we're using him for here. – Joe (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but his opinion shouldn't matter. He's not an archaeologist nor anything related to the subject. He's a journalist mainly known for being anti-science. So, again, why should we care about his fringe opinion if we're biased towards accepted science? His opinion is completely irrelevant. Otherwise, what's the criteria for including opinions and where should we draw the line? Should we start quoting people that make videos on YouTube about Ancient Aliens as well? They are reliable sources on what they themselves think. I've seen hundreds of people giving their opinion on this "docu"-series in irrelevant places. Should we include them as well? Their opinions hold as much weight as Delingpole's. Should I just post my opinion in a blog and quote it here? I'm a reliable source on what my opinion is, and at least I'm an actual Anthropologist. I don't know, including his opinion, to me, looks like a "carte blanche" to fill the article with opinions from irrelevant people.

I'd like to hear the input from someone else besides Joe. I have nothing against you, we just happen to disagree on this and it seems we won't reach a consensus. Gue101 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained why it's relevant. The majority if sources in the reception section weren't written by archaeologists, because we're talking about a television programme. For better or worse The Spectator is a major publication and though terrible for anything factual, it's a good source for the right-wing point of view on things, which is what it's used for here. I don't understand what you see as the problem in including it? Including an opinion in a reception section doesn't imply that it's correct or even worthy. I was glad to find this review because it simultaneously conveys what kind of circles Hancock appeals to nowadays (right-wing conspiracy theorists) and that even they thought this programme was rubbish. – Joe (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure they, as a whole, thought the program was rubbish, like you claim. From what I've read, most of the people that support GH felt the "documentary" was awesome. It's one of the most watched things right now on Netflix and I can't stop reading praises in Reddit, YouTube, and other trash media. There are lots of "articles" about how awesome the show is on questionable sources (which seems irrelevant for quoting opinions, since we're using The Spectator exactly for that).

Delingpole did think it was rubbish, on the basis that it wasn't anti-science enough. He thinks that the show didn't show enough of the evidence he claims that exists for GH's ideas (unlike every single other opinion I've read about it from GH's supporters, which find the "evidence" in the show very convincing) and that the producers did him a disservice by repeating "this is all terribly controversial", "Hancock keeps having to reassure us that pretty much everything he is saying is rejected by most archaeologists" which, to him, serves the purpose of making the viewer "reject the entire thesis" and that "the presentation invites such scepticism by continually reminding you that this is niche, crazy stuff that respectable ‘experts’ shun". The review is just a conspiracy theorist whining about the conspiracy itself. This is not the opinion of most of the people I've read (I admit it's the opinion of only some, the craziest among them). They think that GH's ideas are well substantiated hypothesis of a journalist, not claims of facts (they always love to point out that he's not an Archaeologist, but a Journalist, as if that somehow would prevent Hancock from being an amateur Archaeologist, and would exempt him from the need to engage in actual academic discourse), and that that serves to open up a debate inside (what they perceive to be) a dogmatic academia. You can even check GH's Wiki's talk page: it's filled with people arguing for these points.

I also feel like the inclusion of the quote serves more to portray them all as just silly people that complain about silly stuff (which I agree it's funny, not gonna lie) than to give the actual right-wing point of view on things. Not every single right-winger is a conspiracy theorist and anti-intellectual, just some of them (the MAGA sort); you seem to make no distinction between them and just group them together as "right-wing conspiracy theorists" (since you sometimes use "right-wing", without the "conspiracy-theorist" part, as if they were all the same thing), and I don't think that's neither an accurate nor fair portrayal. And in that context, to me, this quote serves to portray all right-wingers in the worst possible light to make fun of them (at least that's the impression I got, it made me chuckle). I'll try to find sources (seems they don't even have to be reliable sources if you're just looking for opinions! I could quote anything as long as the quote comes from someone relatively known!) on the actual opinion of right-wingers, not just the super silly ones, to complement (what I suspect is) just a fringe opinion on the issue.

I don't think it needs to be removed necessarily, but I do think it can't be the only "right-wing" opinion on the article. We either should complement that quote with others, preferably with more reliable sources (which I think is the best course of action and what I'll attempt) OR delete it. That quote, by itself, is misleading and not representative of all (probably not even most) GH fans.

But in any case, since it seems no one agrees with me (no one else seems interested enough to even comment), I'll just drop the issue for the time being. I wanted to reach a consensus, not to push my opinion.

As I just said, I'll try to complement this article with reliable sources, I just didn't have the time to do it this weekend (it was a busy weekend over here in Argentina and I'm currently exhausted!); the next weekend it's Christmas, so I'll probably do it after that. Cheers and happy Holidays! Gue101 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Not every single right-winger is a conspiracy theorist and anti-intellectual" Define right-winger. Right-wing politics is broad enough to include various types of cultural conservatism, a number of authoritarian ideologies, entire nationalist movements, and people who want to create theocracies. Your average Christian Democrat in the center-right has very little in common with an ultranationalist who wants to safeguard his nation's racial identity through repressive measures. Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

More to the point, Delingpole is definitely a conspiracy theorist and anti-intellectual. His wacky attacks on climate change show it. He is about as credible as David Icke. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

[1] Has already been discussed at some length on the talk page. Yes, and you are the only one who thinks that what Delingpole thinks is DUE. "Has been discussed" is not a reason to reinstate that text.

Why should we care that one crackpot thinks that another crackpot should not be called a crackpot? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I hadn't seen this conversation when I made the edit. But I agree with what everyone else has said. It doesn't really matter, in my view, whether it's immediately evident to readers that "writing for the Spectator" equates to "right-wing crankery". Delingpole's opinion here looks to me like the definition of WP:UNDUE. Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I reinstated the text because it has been there almost as long as the article has existed and as yet there's no consensus to remove it, as is the usual practice. As I have said, what I think is interesting about this review, and makes it worth including, is that a) it shows that Hancock increasingly appeals to right-wing crackpots (Delingpole describes himself as "a fan"); and b) even they didn't think the show was very good. That one crackpot thinks that another crackpot should not be called a crackpot is not what I get from reading the relevant paragraph. I fully agree with you that Delingpole is extremely fringe and not a credible source on anything factual, but I think our readers our better served by an appropriately-attributed description of his fringe views.

@Generalrelative: Could you explain a bit further why you consider it undue weight? Delingpole is not an archaeologist, but neither is Rebecca Onion, the Courrier International writer (presumably), or Stuart Heritage. The section is about the reception of a television series, not an academic text, so I think it's appropriate to summarise reviews from major newspapers (and The Spectator unfortunately is one). I've organised the reception section into expert reviews, then mainstream media reviews, then specific factual objections, and following WP:DUE Delingpole's fringe review is presented after all of these. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't surveyed everyone cited in the section, only saw that several of them were experts. My argument for WP:UNDUE was based on that misconception. Happy to defer to your judgement here. Generalrelative (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable addition, there is no reason "Reception" should be experts only, the audience is wider than that. What does Variety say? If there are WP:RS "Hey, this was a cool and fun show!" reviews, they could fit. Subsections are an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

He criticised the series' production for "continually reminding [the viewer] that this is niche, crazy stuff that respectable 'experts' shun" and for portraying Hancock as "slippery and unreliable". So, to make it more recognizable, why should we care that one slippery and unreliable person spreading crazy niche stuff thinks that another slippery and unreliable person spreading crazy niche stuff should not be called a slippery and unreliable person spreading crazy niche stuff?

At least, he should be marked as another anti-science propagandist to put his comments in perspective. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Article currently says "conservative commentator" and further details are at the linked article. Anti-science propagandist is... well, a bit mild, actually. Still, he has the might of The Spectator behind him, that makes him well-qualified to comment on TV-entertainment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Instead of simply repudiating his theories and portraying him as nothing more than a sensationalist, why not break down and repudiate his evidence with actual facts and evidence? 2600:1014:B1A3:D4FB:0:11:9FD2:2A01 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Because this talkpage is for discussing improvements to the Ancient Apocalypse WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

And because we should ignore IPs with only one edit posting to a comment virtually a year old. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I was in a benevolent non-bite-y mood. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ancient Apocalypse

@Ancientguy1: has recently created Draft:Ancient Apocalypse, which is an obvious Point of view (POV) fork. Ancientguy1, please read WP:POVFORK, then consider blanking that draft page or formally requesting deletion as WP:G7. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Mitch Ames, the correction is not a POV, but a correction of the incorrect term pseudoscientific.

That word should not be used in this article as it’s misleading, inaccurate and inappropriate. Ancientguy1 (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a particular term is right or wrong, creating a complete new page is not the solution, per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NPOVFACT. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s been redirected, pseudoscientific is obviously correct. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Experts words taken out of context

Would it be good to quote (at least in part) one of the statements from the experts featured in the show about being out of context? Possibly actually making a subheading in "reception" for the reaction from those who appeared in the show to distinguish it from reception by those just viewing but not involved in the show? 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:B17D:1F44:E85D:EFF (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Son’s involvement as netflix staff

Someone should add the fact that Grahams son sean works for Netflix and may have had some involvement in the marketing and algorithm of this show.

https://grahamhancock.com/author/seanhancock/ 211.30.189.90 (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Different series with the same name?

Is this an entirely different series with the exact same name? https://www.zdf-studios.com/en/program-catalog/international/unscripted/history-biographies/ancient-apocalypse 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, It is a different series. Paul H. (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced lead

An admin recently reverted a sentence deletion and stated in the edit summary that the very strong accusatio is sourced elsewhere ib the article. That this makes it ok to be in the article lead.

Given the severity of the accusation, the ask is relatively simple. An admin should then source the sentence. It should be relatively quick to do so.

I won't be editing the article again due to the chilling effect having an Admin patrol this article has. I would be banned if I did so in a way an admin didn't like. I believe this runs counter to the open and bold spirit of WP.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I told you already this is covered by WP:LEAD. It’s sourced in the article. The lead thus doesn’t need sources. But you are really not happy with our policies and guidelines and going around complaining about them and claiming Wikipedia is left wing is not constructive, go somewhere more compatible with your b. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you didn't share that WP Lead article before. So your statement that you did is just wrong. I checked in my talk page too but couldnt find anything.

I dont know what you mean as my "b". I will assume its not an insult but it looks bad.

You are an admin here and this is one if your watchlisted articles as per your own admission. Me and any other new editors wont be able to be help if anything we say or ask is met witb hostility. Ill leave this article as its part of your domain. You win.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is also you. Not accusing you of anything and the b sounds like a typo is something.User talk:2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A couple things, IP: first of all, this is not ad hominem. Sometimes trying to be too specific or formal can undermine a point. Secondly, I would agree entirely with you if this were a throaway line in the body of the article. But leads are often not footnoted for ease of reading. Going through the body, it strikes me that there is ample support for the statement, but reasonable minds can certainly differ. If you can convince enough editors to achieve a consensus, then by all means make the change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Second season of Ancient Apocalypse approved

‘Ancient Apocalypse’ Documentary Series Renewed for Season 2 at Netflix by Kasey Moore, June 14, 2024, Whats in Netkix. Paul H. (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

it has since been released. hopefully the article can be updated to include the list of episodes. 47.72.237.213 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Production and release

Regarding this reversion. The section "Production and release" currently contains the line: "Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix" (of course, in scare quotes). However, this seems to be strongly implying that Sean Hancock was involved in the production or release, perhaps inappropriately, a claim that has been suggested wink-wink nudge-nudge in some op-eds as just asking questions, but not actually verified. So what do the sources actually say?

• From What's on Netflix (the current source): Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, coincidentally works at Netflix as a senior manager of unscripted originals. Ah, a coincidence! Neat! This does not mean Sean was involved in any way.
• From Stuart Heritage in the Guardian]: here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?
• Jason Colavito in The New Republic echoes Heritage's musing: “Why has this been allowed?” asked Britain’s The Guardian. The answer to that seemed pretty obvious: Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, is Netflix’s senior manager for unscripted originals.. However, on his own blog, Colavito writes [CORRECTION: Sean Hancock was not involved in decision-making regarding Ancient Apocalypse, and I apologize for repeating a false insinuation that first appeared in the Guardian.] (emphasis his). So either Colavito is reliable or he isn't.
• An op-ed in Hyperallergic writes: How did such a sham of a show get made? Is nepotism the answer? Graham Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, is an executive at Netflix who works in the “Unscripted Originals” department. Yes, IS nepotism the answer? Hmm, hmm, who knows?
• A recent Guardian article simply concludes with: Hancock, previously a journalist at the Economist, wrote several books on international aid before switching focus to human prehistory. He has written more than a dozen books that embrace historical and archaeological themes. His son, Sean Hancock, works at Netflix as a senior manager of unscripted originals. This verifies that Sean works at Netflix, but not verify the suggestion that he had any role in Ancient Apocalypse.

So on balance, we have a lot of juicy implications that Sean Hancock was involved in the project, and one explicit refutation that he was. Unless or until better sources arise, I think it's at best irrelevant trivia and at worse misleading rumor-laundering to include mention of Sean in the production section, although the fact he works at Netflix might of course be appropriate in another article, such as an expanded biography of his father. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Giving the link to Jason would have saved a lot of time. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you support removal of this line? I don't want to do anything without consensus. Also pinging @Joe Roe:. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't say that Sean Hancock was involved in the production. We state factually that he works for Netflix in the relevant department. As you've amply demonstrated here, this is a fact that many reliable sources on the show have also found fit to mention, so your assertion that it is "irrelevant" sounds like your own judgement and not compatible with WP:DUE.

By the way, they are not intended to be scare quotes, just regular quotes indicating that that is his verbatim job title. Otherwise I think the inclusion of such a specific bit of corporatese as "unscripted originals" in the text would not fit with Wikipedia's usual encyclopaedic tone. Feel free to rephrase it. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't outright say, but we pretty strongly imply: in a section titled "Production and release," we have the sentence "Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix." Therefore, I think a naive reader of reasonable intelligence, who didn't read any other sources, would reasonably assume this to mean Sean Hancock was involved somehow in either the production or release. Otherwise, why would this statement be in this section about production? The last Guardian article above also identifies Graham Hancock as a previous journalist for the Economist and writer on international aid before mentioning Sean's job, should these facts also be in "Production and release"? (this is rhetorical, the answer is no). And I disagree with your assertion about "many reliable sources": most sources finding it "fit to mention" are engaging in speculation. That said, I don't necessarily object to Sean Hancock's employer being mentioned anywhere on the page, but we should clearly differentiate causal relationships from opinionated speculation (per WP:RSOPINION) --Animalparty! (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the production because reliable sources usually mention it when describing the production. What other section would it go in? If a plain statements of facts leads people to believe that those facts are connected, that's not our fault, it's reality's. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Most mentions fall under WP:RSOPINION/WP:RSEDITORIAL, and most sources on Ancient Apocalypse don't mention Sean at all. And it's easy to mislead by juxtaposition of true statements. As written, the article launders innuendo, coincidence, and groundless speculation as relevant fact. And what of Colovito's correction outright rejecting Sean's involvement? Should we include "Sean works at Netflix but was not involved in the production or release"? I think the appropriate place to mention Sean's role is in reception, because that's where op-ed sources most seem to dwell on it. And per WP:VNOT we need not necessarily include all verifiable info merely because it exists (we aren't robots), especially when it could mislead. --Animalparty! (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You're saying that 'Hancock's son Sean Hancock is "senior manager of unscripted originals" at Netflix' is an opinion? – Joe (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

We obviously can't say he wasn't involved without something like a Netflix statement. And as Joe says, his role is not an opinion. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am with Joe and Doug here. I could see removal of the quotation marks, if that would help alleviate concerns, but the fact comes up so much in the sources that I think it has to be included in some form. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying Sean Hancock's position is an opinion, I'm saying the only sources that explicitly suggest Sean Hancock had any role whatsoever with Ancient Apocalypse are opinion pieces that are engaging in wild speculation (which even Colavito claims is wrong). What's on Netflix simply mentions Sean "coincidentally" works there. This Guardian article does mention that Sean works at Netflix, as somewhat of a background disclaimer/bio of Graham Hancock, but notably not in a section called "Production and release." Thus by article structure and juxtaposition of statements and subheadings, Wikipedia currently implies connections (i.e. Sean was involved in production/release of this show) much more conclusively than any other non-speculative source. If there are other sources that give more clarification, please list them. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I see you've gone ahead and made these changes despite the clear lack of consensus for them here, Animalparty. Colavito is a WP:EXPERTSPS when it comes to pseudoarchaeology, but not the internal production processes of Netflix. Unless you have a better source I don't see how we can definitively state that Sean Hancock was not involved in the production in wikivoice. For lack of someone to attribute the claim to (presumably whichever lawyer emailed Colavito!), I've added the word "reportedly". I would also support removing it. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

New Analysis of Ancient Apocalypse

An anaylsis of Ancient Apocalypse has been published. It is

Hammer, O. and Swartz, K., 2024. Graham Hancock, Prometheus for a New Age: Alternative Archaeology as Modern Mythmaking Nova Religio. 27 (4) pp. 79-95. Paul H. (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

Hello, this page states that the YDIH has been "comprehensively refuted" and cites Holliday (2023) to support this. However, since Holliday (2023) has been published, there have been several studies that support the YDIH, namely Moore (2023) and Mahaney (2024). Moore (2024) also supports the YDIH but it appears to have been published in a predatory journal. I believe it would be appropriate to remove from this page the statement that the YDIH has been refuted. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A publication in a predatory journal does not change whether or not something has been "comprehensively refuted". Lostsandwich (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich While Airbursts and Cratering Impacts, the journal that Moore (2024) is published in, appears to be a predatory journal, Moore (2023) is published in Nature Scientific Reports and Mahaney (2024) is published in Geologos, both of which are reputable journals. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, the existence of some other people saying things do not, in any way, affect something being "comprehensively refuted", otherwise that term would never get used owing to the heaps and mounds of poorly researched, contrarian hogwash. Not how that works. Lostsandwich (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lostsandwich Why are you referring to something that has been published in 2 peer-reviewed scientific journals as "poorly researched, contrarian hogwash"? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I said, not what you wanted me to say.

The existence of some other publications (in open access journals) do not conflict with the statement that X is "comprehensively refuted." Especially brand new ones. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to any recent publications in support of the YDIH from authors that are not members of the "Comet research group"? Hypnôs (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hypnôs What about Sweatman (2024) published in Time and Mind? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That paper is about symbology. And Sweatman is at least linked to the CRG. Hypnôs (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that Moore (2023) is cited on the Wikipedia page on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. I find it strange that it would be acceptable to cite the study in that Wikipedia page but not in this one. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

First off, Sweatman can pretty much universally be dismissed as pseudoscience, so there's that.

Secondly, Moore (2023) being mentioned on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis page is because they are relevant to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. It isn't cogent here. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that Moore (2023) is cited in a Wikipedia article demonstrate that Wikipedia acknowledges that Holliday (2023) hasn't completely refuted the YDIH? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No it doesn't. When Wikipedia quotes something, that does not mean Wikipedia agrees with it. Duh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Sweatman's Time and Mind paper, whatever one thinks of it, is a primary source. Isn't what is needed for the article are secondary sources that comment on and evaluate Sweatman's Time and Mind paper? Paul H. (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Article about concerning Hopi's objections to Ancient Apocalypse filming

Digging Into an Ancient Apocalypse Controversy From a Hopi Perspective. by Chip Colwell, September 24, 2024. This article provides additional information concerning their objections to Ancient Apocalypse. Paul H. (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The Hopi official interviewed says thusly: "Some Hopi clans trace their origin and emergence to the Grand Canyon. They believe they emerged from a previous world, the Third World, into this present world, the Fourth World." And: "Archaeological records within the Grand Canyon support our claims". Sounds pretty fringe. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That certainly does. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The theories presented in the series

I think part of the reason that people find the "white supremacy" description from the SAA and others startling (though it's absolutely correct), is that they miss that they're not talking about Hancock personally or Hancock's theory alone; they're saying that the intellectual tradition to which he belongs (going back to Ignatius L. Donnelly via Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken etc.) is racist and originates in white supremacy. It might help if we could have an article to link for that, is there one? Or if not, should we start one? What would you even call it? – Joe (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis#Nazism_and_occultism Hypnôs (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Review of Season Two

This might be of interest to you-all.

Review of "Ancient Apocalypse: The Americas" by Jason Colavito 10/16/2024 Paul H. (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"Pseudoarchaeology" in article and lead paragraph

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 meet WP: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.

The second cited source does not mention "pseudoarchaeological" and is therefore not a proper citation for this word. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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 clearly sub-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 deliberate pseudo-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)

This is a clear cut case of failing WP: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 not WP:RS. She does not meet any of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. She also meets the criteria of WP: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)

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)

I agree completely with Joe Paul H. (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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 before Ancient Apocalypse was aired. The statement that Ancient Apocalypse is just another piece in his oeuvre that yet again repeats these pseudoarchaeological claims is not an exeptional one that would need an exceptional source. –Austronesier (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then provide a reliable high quality source WP:RS that specifically speaks about GH engaging in "pseudoarchaeology" WITHOUT doing original research yourself by making inferences WP:OR such as pseudoscientific = pseudohistorical = pseudoarchaeological. Arkenstrone (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not WP: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 in WP: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)

Benzine is not writing "her views/opinions about archaeology" but reporting 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 the archaeology of magic is a thing) and verging on a WP: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)

Your WP:BLP comment is rather ridiculous not relevant. We're not writing a biography of Benzine. We're determining if she is a reliable source as per WP: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)

I replaced it with a better source to hopefully bring this discussion to a conclusion. Hypnôs (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope it does. This horse has been beaten to death by a sea lion. Paul H. (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Benzine citation removed as per WP:RS reverted

@Doug Weller: Please provide substantive rationale for your reversion. "No consensus" is not a sufficient explanation. Benzine is clearly not WP: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)

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 under Wikipedia: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
• A quote by the SAA

None of these require her to have "archaelogy-specific credentials or background". Hypnôs (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Arkenstrone's behavior here is much like it is at Talk:2025 Canadian federal election#PPC being excluded is not WP:Neutral. I doubt that we can convince them they are wrong. See User talk:Arkenstrone#Still January 2025. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stop attacking people and instead focus on the issues and arguments. If you wish to convince me, make better arguments. Arkenstrone (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The citing in this article is very sloppy.

First, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Fringe_theories + WP:PARITY doesn't apply in this context, because there 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 article already 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 Benzine at 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)

Your are right about the quote.

I suggest you take the rest to WP:RSN, as we are going in circles here. Hypnôs (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.

3. Same. And the SAA letter is a primary source. Hypnôs (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

1. As I already mentioned, anything Benzine says is irrelevant, whether it's views, opinions or facts, because she's an unreliable source as per WP: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 a reliable secondary source which sites the SAA letter.

I will take it to WP:RSN shortly. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for More Neutral Coverage of Younger Dryas Hypothesis in Ancient Apocalypse Article

Hi all,

I’d like to propose a small but meaningful revision to improve the neutrality of the Ancient Apocalypse article, particularly in how it addresses Graham Hancock’s engagement with the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis.

Currently, the article leans heavily on framing Hancock as a pseudoarchaeologist, which is understandable given scholarly critiques. However, it does not fairly acknowledge that part of Ancient Apocalypse deals with an ongoing, legitimate scientific debate: the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, which has been examined in peer-reviewed journals, including PNAS and Nature Scientific Reports.

While Hancock’s broader claims remain controversial, it would be more balanced to differentiate his engagement with this hypothesis from broader critiques of his theories. I propose adding the following neutral 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 . Critics argue that Hancock extrapolates from this research to support his broader claims of a lost civilization, which remains unverified.

Supporting References

1. 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.
2. Kennett, J. P., et al. (2009). "Nanodiamonds in Younger Dryas boundary sediments indicate a cosmic impact." PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.0906374106.

References

Why This Improves the Article

• It preserves existing scholarly critiques of Hancock while ensuring his engagement with a real scientific debate is acknowledged.
• It differentiates between established criticism of his lost civilization theory and the fact that Ancient Apocalypse does touch on an area of active research.
• It does not advocate for Hancock but simply aligns the article with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:488:2600:2938:375a:1b23:f4b7 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources that do not mention "Ancient Apocalypse" cannot be used in this article. It would be WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Also it seems to be the series is about a lost civilization and not just the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (about 8,000 years before civilization). Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

"Archeological racism"

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)

Your belief in obsolete concepts, eg caucasians, let alone your using the insulg "woke", doesnt convince me you know what you are taling about. By the way, there is an article about Archaeology and racism. 17:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug 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)

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)

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)

@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 Weller talk 08:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

The see also section is for tangentially related topics per WP:SEEALSO. Please drop the straw man argument. Hypnôs (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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 in Archaeology and racism. Hypnôs (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, especially WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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 check WP:NPOV. Wyatt Abernathy (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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 of WP:NPOV is WP:UNDUE which you should read as well as Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ says

"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 Weller talk 14:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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 Weller talk 14:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

No one seems to agree with you, so there's no point continuing this. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not about race; it's about truth.

Actually, on English Wikipedia it's about WP:Reliable sources. Ever seen this?

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 is WP:V? Good luck. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Then also read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

See WP:SPADE#In_articles. Hypnôs (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

You keep moving the goalpost. Hypnôs (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

According to Spanish Wikipedia, the Spanish Wikipedia is run very differently than the English Wikipedia. Paul H. (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Not all Wiki's have the same rules. We go by our wp:policies. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

In any case, if he edits the article again he'll be taken to ANI and I expect he'll be blocked. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

OK simple question, what opposing views, what RS make the case he is not masking racist claims? Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Not what I asked, what views (sourced to RS) do you want to add? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 with local 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)

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)

Thanks. Let's see what people say to this. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a prime example for WP: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Wyatt Abernathy: Should we also present a "more neutral tone" in the Flat 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 is WP:FALSEBALANCE, as already pointed out. VdSV9•♫ 20:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This is a neutral summary of what reliable sources say. You need to read WP:FALSEBALANCE to understand why this article summarizes the topic in the way it does. 166.205.97.71 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hancock's claims are "not as impossible" as a flat Earth, but they are equally "clearly discredited". One could say that Flat Earth contains some complexity and a following and it would be just as fallacious as when you said it about Ancient Apocalypse. If we are to present 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)

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)

Source for these archaeological parallels? Doug Weller talk 18:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

The issue is that no repurable sources assert that some "similarities" are meaningful (or even exist). If you have one produce it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Yes it can if the BULk (or the implication is all) RS say X we do not say "Y as well" in the name of WP: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)

You repeated this multiple times already. We are approaching WP:DEADHORSE territory.

How about you post here on the talk page everything you would change in X to Y format (no generalizations).

We implement any changes we can get a consensus on, and this ends the discussion. Hypnôs (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

What about this?:

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)

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?

If not, I’ll wait 24h and then proceed. Wyatt Abernathy (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Since this is rather lengthy and not in X to Y format, I didn't have the time to compare.

Unless a consensus for the new version is established, it will likely be reverted. Hypnôs (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Yes I will, as I have already said NO to any changes unless I say otherwise.

All else going here aside, you as one editor have no authority to really say that, WP:OWN and such. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Would you agree that this version preserves the intent of the source while improving the readability? Wyatt Abernathy (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If it's going to be equally long, the quote is preferable. Especially if we're retaining the rest of the block-quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Was this comment written by an AI text generator? MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 Weller talk 14:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we can add Hancock's own response to neo-nazis praising his work?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1963394/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock

Call Hancock a pseudoarcheologist, kook, grifter, whatever. But he is neither racist nor a white supremacist. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 12:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

RS call him it so we can, but yes let's include something like "claims which Hanckock denies". Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

What WP:RS supports something like "which Hancock denies"? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I posted it a few comments above yours: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1963394/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock TurboSuperA+_(talk) 17:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

its not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DAILYEXPRESS, it's a deprecated source...? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The Express interviewed Graham Hancock and he made a statement about himself.

WP:RSP states: What this page is not: a list of banned sources that can never be used or should be removed on sight

I think the source can be used to say that Hancock denies the accusations. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 17:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The earliest civilization we have any archaeological evidence for goes back 6,000 years. This is the issue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's the thing: if Hancock's ideas hsve been compared to racist ideas in the history of archaeology, then Archaeology and racism is a relevant link regardless of whether Hancock is racist.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:59, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep, which is why users need to stop shifting the goal posts. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Weller talk 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

With about 270,000 edits, maybe I know more about NPOV works than you do? Doug Weller talk 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

Your account was registered in 2018. Which account were you using before that? MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Wyatt Abernathy: Sorry, are you using an LLM to generate these responses? CarringtonMist (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

You need to be more specific. Hypnôs (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

You should not use any LLM to write comments, per WP:LLMTALK. Hypnôs (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but, did you read yourself what you send me? Just asking. Wyatt Abernathy (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

He said he was using it for translation purposes. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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.

You average 106 words per reply in this section. Everyone else averages 56 words per reply in this section. Try to be much more concise. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

"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)

This is not a help page, or a forum about user conduct. Can we please not derail this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)