Talk:Fingerprints of the Gods

Bias

This article about Graham Hancock's book is very biased, full of orthodox prejudices and arrogancy. What does "speculative author" mean, for God's sake? As a frequent Wikipedia user, I feel very disappointed. Look at this paragraph: "Although self-described as a work of non-fiction, the proposals put forward in the book are frequently described as pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology by those in the scholarly and scientific community who have examined its contentions."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.138.213 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

This does carry a biased tone. Now I have read "Fingerprints," and found the ideas to be contestable, in the very least. However, the author does note evidence and offers this evidence to the reader. This article, on the other hand, uses vague references to "them." When citing sources, "most people," "much of the ---- community," and such can only be used if you have actually and personally asked "most people" (which to be safe would be roughly 8,000,000,000 people with care to a random sampling of gender, age, religion, education, and other socio-economic factors). If you did not ask "most people," then provide who you did ask, or cite the appropriate article. Citing sources is key to any academic discussion; an agreement on certain "truths" for the present argument to set upon. CITE YOUR SOURCES!!!! For more information, please see the Modern Language Association's web-site or MLA Guide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by King of NH (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Principles

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has issued principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles dealing with categories related to pseudoscience.

• Scientific focus:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

• Neutral point of view as applied to science:

Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

• Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

Four groups 1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. 2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. 3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.151.110 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Moreover

Earth-crust displacement and plate tectonics are not mutually exclusive. And Albert Einstein supported Dr. Hapgood's theory!

Sss4r 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein didn't know about plate tectonics.--Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.

I'm working my through it now, and while I've found plenty that in no way stands up to Occam's razor, he is attempting to analyze a LOT of coincidences in art and architecture among cultures that had no obvious contact in the known past, whereas pertty much every "credible" or "mainstream" scholar just dismisses them as a knee-jerk reaction without seeing any real need to explain why. While I don't think there was an Ice Age global empire that's responsible for every mystery of the ancient world, I do think the rest of academia would do well to learn from Graham's willingness to think outside the paradigm of orthodoxy with regard to dates and history.

After all, while it may seem an outlandish idea that there was a space age civilisation responsible for the scale and precision of Andean stonework, it is surely almost as outlandish to suggest that a culture with no iron tools, no heavy drafts animals, and no wheel, could have done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.116.179 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not that the idea of a prehistoric space age civilization in the Andes "may" be outlandish, as you put it. The idea is clearly pseudo-archaeology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.54.137 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - also

He simply points out archaelogical evidence which has not been explained by modern science/archaelogy/anthropology (i.e. the seemingly instantenous appearance of advanced civilizations in various and distant parts of the world capable of architectual feats that still cannot be explained or duplicated). Rather than claim to have the solutions, he is only noting the problems (which have been largely ignored and brushed over by the mainstream) and hypothesizing possible explanations. The primary thrust of the book is the need for further investigation.

Furthermore, he relies upon solid scientific methodology and theory (i.e. the views he expresses regarding the dating of early Egyptian monuments are widely accepted within the geological community; his mathmetical calculations concerning the dimensions and situation of Egyptian and Mexican/Central/South American monuments has not been refuted). If anything, he more closely follows the scientific method regarding the topics he covers than do most of his critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-nammu (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The examples of the "scientific community" listed in the external links hardly constitute leaders in any scientific discipline.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-nammu (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

(Trying again...) The external links have become heavily biased towards the skeptical viewpoint. I see only one clearly supportive link (to Hancock's own website) and a somewhat friendly book review. Whatever the merits of the book's contents, it was well received by many people when it first came out and it's still admired by many. That support should be reflected in the article. I suggest a regular editor either trim the links to include just two or maybe three of the best skeptical pages, or else divide the links into "supporters" and "critics" and find more friendly webpages to give some balance to the links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.213.67 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing much of the point

Most of the book doesn't really posit anything; Hancock spends most of his time arguing against existing theories. It's only really at the end of the book that the whole Pole-shift, crust-displacement, Antarctic civilisation bit appears. Whether he arranged it this way because of the dramatic effect of a big reveal at the end, or because he wants to make two points, I don't know; but it is pretty clear that the vast majority of the book is concerned with analysing the inaccuracies or inadequacies he perceives with current mainstream theories, with the Antarctic progenitors theory one possible resolution. I will go ahead and point this out in the lead because I feel that focusing on the latter part doesn't really represent the whole book. Leushenko (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The book's merits or demerits apart, this is a baffling comment. If it is intended as a criticism of the book it simply is nonsense. Do you mean to suggest that an author who develops an alternative theory should simply ignore the fact that it flies in the face of orthodox theories in the same field? Surely that would be manipulation of the worst kind. Moreover, I cannot see how the sequence in which an author develops various parts of his argument could possibly be of interest in an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.33.37 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

If article is to be unbiased stop using term pseudoscience. Instead use alternative theories. Otherwise it is suggesting that the book is fictional. Many theories start off as non-mainstream before gradually been excepted as so. The book was written by a respected university professor, not some nutcase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.130.141 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I already linked WP:PSCI at your talk page, but please also see WP:ABIAS and WP:FIXBIAS: the article must summarize reliable sources. If you have sources to cite, this is the right place; if it is uncertain if a source can be used, the reliable sources noticeboard and its archives can be consulted. —PaleoNeonate – 15:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Graham Hancock never was a respected "university professor." At best he can be considered a journalist and writer of popular books of dubious and unreliable quality that contain innumerable fatal errors. Paul H. (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do you feel only a "university professor" can hold a monopoly on a valid opinion? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about "opinions". Wikipedia uses mainstream academic sources per WP:RS. Hancock is a WP:FRINGE pushing "sort of" journalist, he can write his opinions in his own books all he wants, per policy we can not use them here. 05:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are you misrepresenting what people say? Nobody here said they feel that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)