Talk:Michael Baigent

Reversions
Reversions should be discussed, preferably before they are done. So is there any reason for this reversion and this reversion? JASpencer 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As there has been no response I will reinsert the category in a day or so. JASpencer 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the source looks good, and the information appears appropriate to re-add unless someone can provide some other source refuting the information. --Elonka 18:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll wait for a bit to give the editor who deleted this text to give his reasoning.  JASpencer 18:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The category is appropriate. The reference appears verifiable so can reasonably be included. It looks like the interpersonal spat between you and Imacomp, although I do appreciate why you choose not to address it using the procedures available.ALR 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is the spat as far as I can see. I'm not sure what procedures are available.  JASpencer 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User conduct RFC is probably a start. Personally I think there is more than enough to go on there, and it is getting in the way of progress.  You could attempt Mediation, but I have some doubt he'd willingly enter that process.ALR 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm worried about an RFC as some editors will be under fraternal pressure to compromise themselves (as they, IMO, have so far - you're the exception).  I'll look through mediation to see if I can do anything on an informal basis. JASpencer 20:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * An RfC seems excessive, at least for this particular change on this particular article. I would try to address it via careful inclusion of references, and discussion on the talk page first.  Then only go to an RfC if it looks like the issue cannot be addressed by other means.  --Elonka 20:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is only the latest of a long series of reversions by User:Imacomp to edits by JAS, which appear to be based purely on the fact that they have been done by JAS. I would consider it disruptive in a range of different articles.ALR 20:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Added in the discussed revisions. Let's see if this gets deleted sight unseen. JASpencer 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One last question, if this gets reverted without discussion again, would a vandalism warning be appropriate? I think that this would be less heavy handed. JASpencer 07:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

British case found for De Vinci code, and against Holy Blood book. Hence revert, in order that Wiki is not taken to Court. Up to editor to get facts right before adding, not me. PS no Wiki law states that reverts must be talked about. Imacomp 13:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Court case is non-sequitor. JASpencer 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Reversion
Second reversion is more bizarre than his first lot. Essentially it was moving all the references from the end to moving it within the text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baigent&diff=48842503&oldid=48841777

No new information had been added. What is the logic behind this? Are in line citations more libellous? Or is Imacomp just a little bit too trigger happy when he sees one of my edits?

JASpencer 14:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I'm not sure how the way in which references are cited makes any legal difference, even to Imacomp, then I'm going to revert in a couple of hours unless I'm given a reason as to why in line citations are somehow more libellous. JASpencer 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference format
I'm getting a bit confused with the reverts, so wanted to doublecheck here: The main issue in the edit war seems to have nothing to do with what the content is on the page, but simply whether or not the references should be inline citations, or use the "ref" tags, is that correct? Or am I missing something else in the diffs? --Elonka 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Confused? You're not the only one.  This was originally a question about a reference to Baigent's Freemasonry and dislike of Catholicism, and to include Category:Freemasonry.
 * However the last edit to be reverted was simply shifting the references in line.
 * Imacomp said that we may not be able to do this because of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail court case - but I don't have a clue how that affects either of these disputes.
 * ALR has suggested that the dispute is simply that Imacomp wants to revert every contribution of mine. You may think that, but I could not possibly pass comment.
 * JASpencer 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Commentary
(moved here from article page)

I HAVE JUST FINISHED READING THE JESUS PAPERS,AND I MUST COMPLIMENT MR BAIGENT FOR HIS VERY EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH, AND TRAVELS TO MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD TO FIND SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR HIS EFFORTS TO "EXPOSE" JESUS'S CRUXIFICATION MYTHS. BUT I MUST VERY REGRETFULLY ADD THAT MR BAIGENT CAN BE ACCUSED OF THE SAME FOLLY THAT HE ACCUSES CATHOLIC-CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, OF COVER UP OF THE TRUTH. AT VARIOUS PLACES IN HIS BOOK HE COMES VERY CLOSE TO 'REVEALING' ONE MORE TRUTH TO HIS READERS, BUT DECIDES TO 'SHUT UP' OR STOP AND GO OFF AT A TANGENT AFTER BRIEF ENCOUNTERS WITH SOME EASTERN RELIGIONS. HE TALKS OF THE GREEKS ENCOUNTER WITH PERSIANS, OF HOW SOME GREEKS PREFERRED PERSIANS BECAUSE OF THEIR CULTURE. HE TALKS OF BABYLON AND MORE SIGNIFICANTLY OF ASSYRIA AND OF THEIR GOD 'ASSHUR' WHICH MEANT THE ONE GOD; BUT HE STOPS HERE AND FAILS TO MENTION MORE 'FACTS', THAT 'ASSHUR' IS THE SAME AS THE OLD PROTO-HINDU VEDIC GOD ASHURA, OR THE PROTO PERSIAN-AVESTAIC GOD AHURA. AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THESE FACTS IN HIS BOOK FOR THE ETHICAL PURPOSE OF REVEALING ALL THE TRUTH; BECAUSE, THE ZOROASTRIAN AHURA IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS EVOLUTION THAT GOD-AHURA IS RECOGNISED AS THE ONLY ONE GOD, CREATOR, FATHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, THE FIRST AND LAST, PURE AND ALL THAT IS GOOD! THE ZOROASTRIAN CONCEPT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, OF THE RESURRECTION AND THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD, ALL THIS WOULD HAVE REVEALED THE FULL TRUTH, BUT MR BAIGENT DECIDES TO STOP WHERE HE DID, PITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.219.242 (talk • contribs) 21:32, July 28, 2006


 * Shhh. Please don't SHOUT, I can feel a headache coming on... :-) Martan 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Category: Historians of Freemasonry
I have to object to this categorization... Baigent wrote two books which mention Freemasonry... Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Temple and the Lodge. Neither is a real history of the fraternity. HBHG barely mentions Freemasonry, dealing mostly with the Priory of Sion (afterwords proven to be a hoax). T&L spends one chapter trying (speculatively) to "prove" the connection between the Templars and Freemasonry (through stuff like grave stones) and one chapter on the subsequent history of Freemasonry (mostly trying to prove that the American Revolution was a Masonic plot). This does not a "Historian of Freemasonry" make! In fact, most of what he writes is better classified as pseudohistory. I am going to remove the categorization. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is that he wrote (what purports to be) a history of freemasonry. It may be tripe, but it wasn't written as fiction. JASpencer (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Anagram (Teabing)
"Teabing" is an anagram of Baigent. (And "Leigh Teabing" is a reference to Richard Leigh and Michael Teabing.) I'm sure it's easy to find many sources that say (or suggest) this; it would be nice to include this in a relevant place in the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Baigent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428012125/http://www.michaelbaigent.com/default.html to http://www.michaelbaigent.com/default.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)