Talk:Magicians of the Gods

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Archaeology Low‑importance

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

Skepticism Low‑importance

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

Reviews[edit]

These might be used to flesh out the reception section:

The Skeptic review, by geologist Marc J. Defant, seems especially useful because it contains a detailed critique of the book's factual claims. (@Doug Weller: It also has quite a lengthy rebuttal of the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper on Gobekli Tepe, as it happens). – Joe (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweatman and Tsikritsis[edit]

And yet, Joe Roe, Defant's is just the opinion of one person. In the academic department in which I work, the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper has been received very well, as it is now clear the Younger Dryas event almost certainly did happen. The scientific evidence is very clear on this. Also, why Wikipedia editors are basing their accounts on non-peer-reviewed bloggers, rather than peer reviewed academic papers is beyond me. Shame on you. As for the use of 'Neutral point of view' to delete a reference to this paper - this tactic can be used by anyone to justify their own opinion. Joe Roe, you have absolutely no idea how well the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper is viewed in academic circles. I suggests you read all the papers on the Younger Dryas event, and all the papers on CLube an Napier's coherent catastrophism, and then read the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper again. Perhaps you will then appreciate why it was accepted for publication. Ultimately, the evidence is very strong that Hancock is correct on his main point, i.e. the link between Gobekli Tepe and the Younger Dryas event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.102.192 (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I'm surprised to hear that. Is it an archaeology department?

In any case what we are concerned with is what published sources say, not what you, I or the grapevine think. Since the Sweatman and Tsikritsis clearly take inspiration from Hancock's ideas (although they don't cite him), and this link has been referenced in several reliable sources [1][2][3][4], I think that it is reasonable to mention the paper here. But per WP:FRINGE, it must be presented with proper balance, i.e. alongside criticism from mainstream archaeology.

We are usually cautious about self-published blogs. But Colavito is an established expert on pseudoarchaeology, so I think it's appropriate to include his opinions on this pseudoarchaeological book. – Joe (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:PARITY permits to use non-ideal sources with common sense when required to observe WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. When the author is a recknowned expert that's even better. Another thing is that sources should ideally be independent of the subject (a large number of in-universe papers are not the same as reliable independent sources, but may be a sign of notability). —Paleo Neonate – 09:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP is editing from Sweatman and Tsikritisis's university. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an archaeology department. But the Younger Dryas event is not an archaeological issue. It's a scientific issue.

If the YD event happened, as now appears very likely, we should not be surprised it was recorded by its survivors.

I agree. No problem with that at all. So instead of deleting the sentence about Sweatman and Tsikritsis, why not simply add a line that links to the archaeologist's rebuttal? It's curious that you prefer to do otherwise.

Like anyone can be an acknowledged expert on pseudoarchaeology. That's just ridiculous. If he was an expert on anything he would be writing academic papers, not blogging. Now, Defant is a different case. He is an academic expert on volcanology. Note, there is kind of academic turf war between volcanologists and cometary scientists about who has more to say about past catastrophes, so his view on this matter is also likely to be biased. Moreover, if he could actually refute the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper, why does he not publish his view in a peer-reviewed academic journal, the usual route that provided a high degree of confidence in the work, rather than blogging. It's because he knows he would not get published.

But the Sweatman and Tsikritsis paper IS INDEPENDENT of Hancock? They are academic scientists is a world-leading university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.102.192 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor entry[edit]

This article is not what it purports to be. It appears to be a very biased opinion of one person who uses it to undertake ad hominem attack on both Graham Handcock and, indirectly, the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH). It would be better;

to remove the personal attacks on Mr Hancock.
describe the book in more impersonal terms,
provide a more balanced selection of external references that give views both for and against.

I am no great supporter of Mr Hancock's works but science proceeds by rational consideration of peoples suggestions and refutation by pointing out inconsistencies or inaccuracies. "Snorts of derision" are just bad science and do not qualify.

I probably should add that I have never read this book. In fact the only book by Mr Hancock I started but never finished was "America Before". Which I believe hypothesises similar ideas. All I can say is although I don't accept his conclusions many of the references he puts forward are credible. Just because we disagree with the way the dots are joined doesn't invalidate the dots.

Also the sideswipe at the YDIH probably needs some revision. Just as the K-T impact was widely rejected by the mainstream and is now widely accepted, the YDIH is gaining much wider acceptance. Again just because we disagree with the way the dots are joined doesn't invalidate the dots.

This article does no credit to Wikipedia or the principles upon which it's based. QuoRef6DW (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuoRef6DW: See WP:Fringe. Wikipedia's coverage is based on what reliable sources say, and policy does not require or even advise elevating every fringe viewpoint to the status of those prevailing in science. Heavy Water (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]