Talk:Michael Cremo

Talk radio and WP:UNDUE
If Cremo's highest profile is that he regularly features on talk-radio (notorious for its low standards and the favoured venue for a large range of WP:FRINGE views), then this doesn't say much for him. I will attempt to rewrite this sentence so that it more accurately characterises the forum on which Cremo is presenting his ideas. HrafnTalkStalk 07:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue
A lot of material presented here is ether undue or does not provide WP:YESPOV on the subject. The subject of FA is not as notable as well but if anything, should be presented from a neutral point of view. Wikidās ॐ 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Cremo passes any reasonable interpretation of WP:N, as I explained in my last edit summary to the article. But I do agree that the article was going a little overboard with the criticism sections. Zagalejo^^^ 07:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of WP:UNDUE, why are we giving about as much space for his being on Coast to Coast AM as we do for the entire scientific community's rejection of his work? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there should be some balance on any article and especially on WP:BLP articles. The section of criticism is certainly off balance, besides being full of dubious sources. So clearly to comply with req of BLP one should ether merge it into some pseudo science related article or keep it in complience with BLP - and that means no dubious sources and no slant on way or another. Read up Wikidās ॐ 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a point when we just started piling things on. It should be sufficient to simply explain why his ideas have been criticized by the scientific community. I think the last paragraph (as of this edit) does that well. If we try to throw in every negative comment we can find, the prose suffers, and the article starts to look like an attack piece. Zagalejo^^^ 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I've written about any article in Wikipedia in a long time. I felt it necessary to say I thought this Wikipedia article on Cremo is a total hatchet job. Cremo has been a speaker at academic conferences, so someone out there thinks his information is worth listening to. As to the point of him cherry picking, what archeologist doesn't present the facts and source materials that support his arguments? Cremo certainly does an adequate job of presenting the fact that others seriously disagree with him. He doesn't hide that in the slightest. This argument is offensive and makes Wikipedia look like it is written by political hacks. If this article isn't cleaned up, it is a serious black mark on Wikipedia, more than on Cremo. This is like the attack dogs have been let loose on Cremo. They say NOTHING of his credentials, except the innuendo that because he happens to also have a religious background, he must be an illogical and unscientific thinker. I challenge any of the critics here to write an 800 page book that covers a wide subject as well and thoroughly as Cremo and Thompson did. The critics here pretend that the book is pulled out of Cremo's and Thompson's rear ends. Instead it is footnoted up the ying yang. Cremo and Thompson pulled the facts out of peer-reviewed papers. Like any authors, they choose to interpret the material in their own way. The critics here give the total impression that Cremo's POV is invalid simply because he has a religious connection, and therefore he must be incapable of truly rational thought; God keeps getting in his way. That is amazing they should suggest that so strongly, since almost all the early archeologists - the ones referred to in the history of archeology - had staunchly religious backgrounds. Without those white Anglo-Saxon Christians of several ilks, it is debatable if archeology would even exist today. I would even posit that archeology is not even a science (I've made this argument elsewhere), but that it is a history discipline that uses some control over site management in order to control layer referencing and a record of artifact location, plus a good history of the art of ceramic development, and that then sends some of the artifacts to true scientists - who work in labs that actually quantify data - for running C14 and thermoluminescent dating. The archeologoists are no more scientists than I was when I would send steel strap samples to a lab to test their yield strengths. Farming out the real science does not make archeologists scientists. A young archeology student I know has faculty in her department at UCLA wanting them to stop putting so much science into archeology. C14 is the main claim of archeology to be a science. But when they don't even do the lab work themselves, but only do the interpreting of the results, how is that science? An art historian does the same thing, but doesn't go around claiming he is a scientist.

The attack dogs who authored this Cremo page left out mention of how much sourcing Cremo and Thompson did; the critics instead cherry picked their "facts" about Cremo to suit their own ends, spinning and spinning to try make Cremo look like a fool. Geez, is that the pot calling the kettle black? I'd remind the critics of the warning, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous [sic]." The lack of balance is simply egregious.

In spite of the evolutionists' belief that everything is covered in evolution, that all the gaps are well understood, that simply has never been the case. Missing bits have been there since the beginning, and many bits are simply ignored. The history of paleontology is a history of scads of extrapolation based on a minimum of artifacts. When all the history of man is supported by less bones than would fill a good sized dumpster, we need to understand that any understanding we have now is almost certainly inadequate and virtually sure to be overturned some day. Perhaps some day soon. Every year scientific "realities" are thrown out in one discipline or another. One day something is true and scientists swear up and down it is so, and the next day someone shoots it out of the saddle. And the following day the scientists present the new reality as if it had always been their point of view, hoping that no one can remember things like: mountains were thought to be formed by the wrinkling of the crust as the Earth cooled and shrank, or when Venus was fully expected to be reasonably Earth-like. Scientists today laugh and say, "Well that was then; we are too smart for that now." But that is exactly the attitude science had in 1955 when those two things were believed. What of today's science will be shown to be 100% wrong in the next 556 years, by the year 2067? Cremo and Thompson pointed out specific artifacts that science had swept under the carpet long ago, buried in museum basements, and hoped would simply go away. It is scientists who cherry pick, when they don't include the "forbidden" bits that Cremo and Thompson resurrected. It is not possible to pull these anomalies out of the dustbin of history without looking like cherry picking - but it was scientists who, in the first place, cherry picked them out of existence in the first place. And now when someone turns them up, he is attacked as the cherry picker. It is actually to be expected, since the status quo has a lot invested in the current paradigms and a lot to lose if some anomalies point out how wrong science might have been for the last 100 years or more. That is a lot of ivory tower careers threatened and a lot of peer-reviewed papers that might prove to be wrong. When ad hominem attacks like this article is the best Wikipedia can do, no wonder so many people look at references to Wikipedia as a joke.

While I am not a very religious person myself, I agree with the gist of Dr. Francisco Esquivel's points, that the certainty presented by the defenders of the atheistic view of science are not the only view, and they should not be allowed to hammer down someone who has spirituality or religion as part of their approach, just because someone else's approach is wider than their own. After all, if the single issue of "Do humans have souls" were ever shown to be a fact, much of the atheistic scientific view would be thrown on the trash heap - and all hell might break loose in the halls of science, as issue after issue would have to be reconsidered. That is not to say that the present attack dogs who authored this article would accept any proof of the soul whatsoever. They'd deny it to their dying breaths - and would I am sure even brag here that such would be the case. It took science a very long time to step out from the skirt of Mother Church, and they fervently fight any possibility of letting the Pope back into things. Like the catastrophists who predated Darwin and Lyell, they would simply die off and be replaced by thinkers of the new reality. Cremo and (the late) Thompson happen to think we all have souls, so their attempt at understanding tries to incorporate the soul into the bigger picture. The authors apparently try to pretend that the soul has already been proven to not exist. I challenge them to show such a peer-reviewed paper.--SteveGinIL (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Splitting up the article
It looks like the article to contain all the critical material needs to be merged, at least the section of it on FA. Otherwise it needs to be reported to the BLP taskforce for non compliance. Wikidās ॐ 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand where the material would fit in Evolutionary history of life. That merge would never stick. Zagalejo^^^ 19:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then maybe a sub article or an article for the book itself? The book however is about Evolutionary history of life, even I have not read it (sorry). Wikidās ॐ 07:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be "about Evolutionary history of life", but it is a ' tiny minority viewpoint about Evolutionary history of life' and so should not be included in that article. As to splitting the book off into a new article, I don't really think there's enough notability for two articles. Cremo is notable pretty-near-solely for the views that this book are the main embodiment of. Further, the 'overlap' & 'context' criteria of WP:MERGE would appear to work against it. The simple fact of the matter is that Cremo is known principally for the views in that book, so an article on him cannot escape from giving WP:DUE weight to the criticism of his views contained in that book. If you make your career out of telling large chunks of the scientific community that it's wrong, then you have to expect to take your knocks -- both in real life & on your wikipedia article (as much of the coverage of you will be negative). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously the main point is not WP:DUE but the principles of WP:BLP. I suggest that an article that is solely or mainly about criticism of a book that a person co-authored and is not his exclusive research can not exist. The policy is:


 * "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides;"


 * Thus just comply with it and do not "overwhelm the article" with it especially if reliable secondary sources are not that reliable or WP:V. If you insist on making it a coatrack the material will just be removed, even if the COAT is accidentally evolved through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and WP:NOT makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned. Wikidās ॐ 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP closely echoes (and directly cites) WP:DUE: "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one." The article therefore should give proportionate space to the majority (scientific) viewpoint, and avoid giving disproportionate space to minority (Hindu creationist and paranormalist) views. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Create a separate 'scientific' article, this is BLP, do not make a coatrack out of this article. Not acceptable or is it your agenda? Wikidās ॐ 13:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Cremo has made a career out of making pseudoscientific claims, so the scientific viewpoint is directly relevant. It makes no more sense to "create a separate 'scientific' article" than it does to 'create a separate Hindu creationist article' or 'a separate paranormalist article'. Being a BLP does not shield the subject of an article from WP:DUE weight to criticism that is relevant to their notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In truth since I know the guy he has made a career out being Gaudiya Vaisnava and its religious presentation. He only co-authored the book, that was in most written and researched by late Thompson. Even if he made his way trough 'pseudo science' -- still it will not qualify to have not-neutral or bias in the BLP. Wikidās ॐ 14:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If he is not notable for this book, then what is he notable for? I have seen no articulation of an alternate notability, let alone third-party sources to substantiate it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- here you go (you probably do not even know what was his name in Hare Krishna movement) Wikidās ॐ 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the references reliable?
I have not heard of Tom Morrow. Does anyone knows him? Is he just a school teacher or is he notable?

662 Hogskin Valley Rd Washburn TN 37888-1735 - is it some sort of a home address? If he is not are there any other reliable reviews to support the claims. -- Wikidās ॐ 14:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was published in the RNCSE, which is published by the National Center for Science Education, and is considered to be a reliable source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay so he is just a school teacher. No credentials, no doctorate degree. An opinion expressed in a 'reliable source', probably would not fly at WP:RSN. Wikidās ॐ 15:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your substantiation for claiming that he's "just a school teacher" and has "no credentials, no doctorate degree". It seems highly unlikely that an article in the field of anthropology would be published by NCSE (whose executive director is herself an anthropologist) if it wasn't up to scratch. By all means take it to WP:RS/N, but it would appear to be at least as solid as anything else in this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * National Center for Science Education founded by teachers and have many people working and writing for it who have no credentials. Surely there is a slant in the presentation since almost the sole purpose was to attack anyone with religious agenda. I hope you do not suggest that the slant of the National Center for Science Education is the majority view. Certainly no reliable sources to support this view, it can be however mentioned is passing as a single point of view. Wikidās ॐ 16:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be bloody daft. The NCSE has heavyweight scientific credentials and backing -- see National Center for Science Education. So yes, the viewpoint they are expressing is most certainly the majority viewpoint of the scientific community. Your claim that "the sole purpose was to attack anyone with religious agenda" is fallacious as the NCSE has a long history of working with religious scientists, a point that is clearly noted in Ronald Numbers' The Creationists (Expanded Ed, p354), and includes prominent Theistic evolutionists (e.g. Keith B. Miller & Kenneth R. Miller) among its supporters. As to your claim that it has "many people working and writing for it who have no credentials" -- I would suggest that you substantiate this claim with sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is not being polite at all. I guess this is the time to mention that in the above you voted to delete the article and only reason you wanted to keep it is to make a coatrack out of the article and that was the only reason that you changed you vote from delete to weak keep. here So who is being daft here? The LEDE of their article states that their purpose is teaching of evolutionary biology and opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in America's public schools. So obviously they will have a bias towards the subject of this article. Clear case of coatrack and it is ESPECIALLY not acceptable in the case of BLP! Wikidās ॐ 16:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW one is not obliged to support any statements of the talk pages with sources, but National Center for Science Education is absolutely not a neutral source. It is obvious. Your suggestion that it is most certainly the majority viewpoint of the scientific community is unfounded and in itself not neutral. The whole point is WP:N. How neutral are you if you wanted to delete this entry and only agreed to keep it so that you can use it as a coatrack for specific education related attacks? Wikidās ॐ 16:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas' comments on this talk page are certainly making me question his or her agenda concerning this article. Regardless, he or she has failed to present any kind of convincing case for substantial overhaul of the article. ClovisPt (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I made myself painfully clear. WP:BLP requires good references and neutral presentation of the same. Neutral means that all sides are presented and no undue weight is given. The only requirement and underlining principle of BLP is 'do not harm'. Thank you for asking. I am working and specialising in BLPs of current Gaudiya Vaishnavas and have particular interest in this guy, since I know him well and know well how this book was created. So... can we agree to be neutral? Wikidās ॐ 17:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidas: given your gross misrepresentations of NCSE & of WP:BLP and your gross violation of WP:AGF, I have nothing more to say to you on the subject here. RNCSE, and the articles contained in it, are WP:RS. If you want to dispute that, then take it to WP:RS/N. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith where I see no evidence otherwise. I guess WP:BLP explains it all. Maybe you should wait for him to die to make sure you can make article less neutral? Yes the publication can be taken as RS but only with complementing other views as in WP:YESPOV. Please do not try to intimidate me with personal attacks, you well know the policies on this. Wikidās ॐ 18:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was recently looking up the findings in the Bay of Cambay. In the article I found [http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/oldcity.htm 9,500-Year-Old City Found Underwater Off India], it uses statements made by Cremo, Graham Hancock, and Linda Moulton Howe. The statements made by Cremo would seem laughable if he had no scientific credibility. So I looked up to see who he was, as well as the other people sited in the article. I often read the discussion/talk sections of the Wikipedia page on a topic to see if there is debate about something. After reading this "debate" I believe that the Wikipedia article on Cremo should focus more on his theories and works rather than examining his criticisms. The article gives the reader a negative point of view about Cremo. Even if Cremo is totally wrong in every way, it is important to know who he is and what he has done. So readers can gain more knowledge (isn't that the point of Wikipedia?). If he has been proven wrong or has "crazy" theories, it will reveal itself. However controversial someones theories or achievements are, it is impossible to understand them if your source of information is opinionated. This is the problem with a user submitted source. Or most sources for that matter. I am very skeptical and arrive upon opinions based on many different sources. I am becoming more familiar with media blackouts of certain topics, which makes finding alternate news EXTREMELY important. Obvious advice for people looking for info: -Use many sources and form your own opinions

Obvious advice for people having a web argument: -Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one and they all stink. You don't want to smell his any more than he wants to smell yours.

I hope my writings have had a positive impact on the Michael Cremo wikipedia article. If not, Sorry!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlallo (talk • contribs) 06:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * www.spiritofmaat.com does not appear to be a WP:RS, and its article appears to exaggerate the certainty of the dating of the find. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of reviews
We should not be using reviews from the author's website. I used Google to try to find the original, and Google Scholar only came up with this rtf article which shows how the site has misused reviews in the past: Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting -- however statement "the challenging nature of the work was appreciated by some of the academics" is factual. Do you have any other way to keep it neutral as is the requirement for BLP? Wikid as&#169; 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
I have added some statement that just records the fact that 'the nature' of challenge was appreciated by 'some' academics. If no other sources found to expand it. Wikid as&#169; 22:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I have removed the statement as misrepresenting the source -- which declares the book's evidence to be "far from" convincing and "more historical and sociological than scientific". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Education
Can anyone find and list Cremo's scientific degrees/education/qualifications? There is a short blurb on his education, but it doesn't specify which degrees he holds. --Pstanton (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my five years of association with Cremo at the ISKCON temple in San Diego, neither he nor anyone else, including Thompson, ever represented him as having any academic credentials. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Message from Dr. Francisco Esquivel
With all respect to Wikipedia author or editors. Like a Humanistic scholar, I found this article on Dr. Cremo view like tipical partidistic of the materialistic optic; like those so calle skceptical thinkers, whose are atheistic and gross materialistics. But this is no scientific or philosophical objetive people. So, Cremo work had been review in the top most promiments archology journals and many erudites appreaciate his work. Also, he is a European Archologistics Society and the Science History Association member, he earned a Ph D in Honoris Causa in philosphy of science at end. Any coolhead independent intelectual can appraciate his achievements.

Regards.

Dr. Franciso Esquivel Reyes. M.C. Ph. D

in Organical Quimic from Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila

Saltillo, Coah.

Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.15.23 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article has to be improved and present a more comprehensive and balanced info on Michael Cremo and his work. I hope to see this improvement over time. If you have citable resources, you can ask for the aid of an experienced Wikipedian (who knows the style, guidelines and syntax) to make the edits you see fit. John Hyams (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * by definition you don't earn an honorary degree. 142.163.195.212 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to Hidden History Hidden Agenda
If Wikipedia is going to cite the letter Hidden History Hidden Agenda (footnoted to this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html), then they should include the author's response, http://reocities.com/Athens/olympus/2855/cremo.html, which was not answered by Lepper. Amalag (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The latter does not appear to be WP:RS, probably violates WP:SELFPUB, so probably should not be included. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a citation of criticism of the author's book, why should there not be a link where the author answers that criticism? All reviews and rebuttals are published in the book Forbidden Archeology's Impact.  Should that be mentioned to maintain neutrality.

So the following is wrong with this article:

1. All reviews cited and paraphrased are negative. The slant of this wikipedia article is that all qualified scientists have dismissed the book. However this is not the case, the author has provided dozens of excerpts which are positive: http://www.harekrishna.com/col/books/science/rev.html Why are none of those included? They contain full citations.

2. The first sentence of the article mentions the author and the book he has written and contains a footnote to a negative review of the book on the book's impact. Not even a direct link to the book. We don't need a citation of a review of the book on the book to tell us what the book's premise is. So what is the purpose in bringing this footnote? It is only relevant if in a section covering negative reviews of the book he published on reviews of his first book.

3. He appeared on the one hour NBC show "Mysterious Origin's of Man", Sunday February 25th, 1996Amalag (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:DUE, WP:PSTS & WP:MOSLINK. Self-published 'defences' of fringe positions are generally not acceptable. If you wish to cite information in Cremo's published work then that would be more acceptable. That "All reviews cited and paraphrased are negative" probably reflects the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources hold such views. A cherry-picked listing of brief, context-less and generally equivocal quotes does not refute this. Wikipedia cites (preferably secondary, e.g. a review) sources for information contained in the article and does not give "direct links[s]" in the body of an article. That he featured in the crank-fest The Mysterious Origins of Man is hardly a plus. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please check WP:NPOV, stop calling people "cranks" just becuase they say something different than your own beliefs. WebofLife (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of recent edits
I reverted "The book is an evaluation of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for extreme human antiquity. Considered collectively these anomalous research papers suggest"

First, this is an inaccurate description of the book as it suggests that it is, well, just an evaluation of papers from peer reviewed journals. Unless my memory is very faulty, that's not an accurate description of the book. I don't recall how many genuine peer reviewed papers are used, but there is a lot of material in it that can't be described that way. "Considered effectively these...suggest" is the editor's opinion, or Cremo's opinion, but can't be stated as Wikipedia's opinion.

Likewise, "Due to their anomalous character (contradicting as they do current models of human evolution from less advanced primates) these research papers have been discarded by the scientific establishment." was stated as fact, - the earlier wording was better.

The Tim Murray material is just copied from Cremo's website and is of course cherry picked. It appears that the editor adding it hasn't actually read the review and certainly hasn't sourced it properly (what issue, year, title, etc) so that others can check it. We need to know what else Murray wrote before we can be sure that we are fairly representing his opinion. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Doug. Thanks for replying. First of all I would like to tell you that the book deals only with peer reviewed scientific studies. There is no literature discussed in the book which is not of this calibre. You may be familiar with Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' in which he explains that in normal scientific procedure evidence is 'cherry-picked' (to use your phrase) in order to fit the current paradigm. Anomalies to the existing paradigm are put to one side (my choice of term is 'discarded') until a time when the current paradigm proves itself to be inadequate in explaining the data. Forbidden Archeology is a review of the scientific literature focusing on those studies which Kuhn calls 'anomalous'. The authors, of course, are seeking to support the hypothesis that human beings have existed on the earth for much longer than the current paradigm allows. However, they only use academically conventional scientific literature to do this. In this respect I think they present a powerful case. There is nothing pseudo-scientific about their methods. Tim Murray is a respected archeologist and would not have published one of Cremo's papers in one of his books had he not felt the paper met adequate standards. So I must contest your claim that the statement "The book is an evaluation of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for extreme human antiquity. Considered collectively these anomalous research papers suggest that modern humans have lived on the earth for millions of years." is innaccurate. I ask you again, in what way are these statements inaccurate? You say that there is a lot of material in the book that cannot be described that way. Please present evidence. Similarly when i say "Due to their anomalous character (contradicting as they do current models of human evolution from less advanced primates) these research papers have been discarded by the scientific establishment." this is also uncontroversial. The papers are not discussed by the scientific community because a consensus has been reached on a provisional model of human evolution which these papers directly contradict. Therefore they are discarded (at least for the moment). On the other hand the current wording states that the book has been criticized by scholars for ignorance of basic archeology. If Cremo is ignorant of basic archaeology why is he a member of two learned bodies, the European Association of Archaeologists and the World Archeological Congress? Furthermore why would an established, respected figure like Tim Murray include a paper by Cremo in his book Time and Archaeology, 1999, published by Routledge. You may not like his views but one shouldn't diminish the man's achievements which include a dozen papers in learned academic journals and many, many lectures at universities around the world. I do nonetheless agree with your last remark that Murray's review quote should be sourced. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The EAA is a "Membership-based association open to all archaeologists and other related or interested individuals or bodies". The WAC doesn't even add those caveats, it says it is open to all members of the public. So his memberships of those simply reflect his desire to belong to them, although his membership seems to be being used incorrectly to give him credibility.
 * As for the statements you refer to, they are original research by our definition at WP:NOR.
 * And as for the contents of the book, I'll have to get back to you as I'm about to leave where I'm staying and will be travelling all day. Tomorrow hopefully, but I would like to know how you know that, for instance, the 1820 material from the American Journal of Science can be called peer reviewed as we use the term today. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * EAA membership is open to non-archaeologists but only in the form of an associate membership. That is because the EAA is an association of professional archaeologists. It publishes the European Journal of Archaeology. Cremo actually describes himself as a historian and philosopher of science. This would explain why he has had a review of one of his books in the British Journal for the History of Science and why he delivered a paper at the twentieth International Congress for History of Science in Liege, Belgium. But to be a member of the EAA you have to be considered a de facto archaeologist. As for WAC membership, I think it is enough that he delivered a paper at the third congress of 1993 from which time his membership dates. I don't see how membership of these bodies is "being used incorrectly to give him credibility". If he had no credibility he wouldn't be invited to talk at universities all around the world. Yes, all the research on which Cremo bases his book is from scientific journals. The American Journal of Science is, according to their website "...an important source for seminal American scientific papers and received top ranking in 2003 for peer reviewed journals in the field of earth sciences." Peer-reviewed scientific journals, it may be recalled, go back to 1660 with the founding of the Royal Society.


 * Neither of the reviewers cited as 'scholars of the mainstream archaeological and paleoanthropological communities' who have determined Cremo's work as pseudoscience are as such. Wade Tarzia is a Professor of English and has no background in science. Noretta Koertge is a chemist turned philosopher of science and has no training in any relevant scientific field. On the other hand, Tim Murray, who is responsible for giving Cremo the most credibility is a former Chair Professor of Archaeology at La Trobe University and currently Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.


 * You have not yet answered the question as to why the following statement is inaccurate, "The book is an evaluation of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for extreme human antiquity. Considered collectively these anomalous research papers suggest that modern humans have lived on the earth for millions of years." This is not an opinion, it is a summary evaluation of the papers which Cremo and Thompson cite and which support the thesis of Forbidden Archeology. And, yes, Forbidden Archeology is a piece of original research. The wikipedia ban on original research refers to statements of editors which cannot be referred to printed sources or which draw conclusions that cannot be inferred from those printed sources. Neither is true in this case. The statement "Collectively considered, these anomalous papers suggest that humans have lived on the earth for millions of years." is the explicit thesis of Forbidden Archeology and it is backed up (which you will discover if you actually read the book) admirably. In your original statement you say, "I don't recall how many genuine peer reviewed papers are used, but there is a lot of material in it that can't be described that way." It is not clear to me whether you have read the book or not but you have not accurately represented the contents of the book. The book only concerns itself with an evaluation of scientific papers. Therefore the current introduction misrepresents the book and its reception. It is what one calls "a hatchet job" and is very much against both the spirit and the letter of wikipedia.81.106.127.14 (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the EAA has two classes of membership. Cremo doesn't say what class his membership is so far as I can tell from his website.
 * You say that "The book is an evaluation of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for extreme human antiquity. Considered collectively these anomalous research papers suggest that modern humans have lived on the earth for millions of years." is not an opinion but an evaluation - that's original research whatever you call it and you cannot infer like that. WP:NOR says clearly " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1]" And that applies to the claim that everything discussed in it is from peer reviewed journals. If you disagree, ask at WP:NORN.
 * You say we should use a quote from Tim Murray, and I asked you what else he said in his review. How about using this quote instead of yours, "This is a piece of ‘Creation Science’ which, while not based on the need to promote a Christian alternative, manifests many of the same types of argument: first, an attempt to characterize the opposition as motivated by the need to preserve their view of the world rather than a desire to practice unfettered inquiry; secondly, to explain the currently marginal position of your alternative as being the result of prejudice, conspiracy and manipulation rather than of any fault of the theory itself; thirdly, to present the opposition (in this case mainstream palaeoanthropology and quarternary archaeology) as being united as a ‘secret college’ to manipulate the public mind and to exclude non-professionals from being able to control science for the benefit of all."
 * As for Tarzia, whatever you think of him, Cremo took him very seriously. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
Added NPOV --- the subjects field presentation sounds like there is 0 main stream support. It portrays the subject as 'it vs the world'. It needs some main stream support to balance out the negativity -- if there is any .--Rickbrown9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Did you check? The problem is exmplifified by his statement here about himself (from a chapter in a reliably published source edited by a respectable archaeologist, so he does get published in mainstream sources from time to time) "The author subjectively positions himself within the Vaisnava Hindu world view, and from this perspective offers a radical critique of modern generalizations about human origins and antiquity. Hindu historical literatures, particularly the Puranas and Itihasas, place human existence in the context of repeating time cycles called yugas and kdlpas, lasting hundreds of millions of years. During this entire time, according to the Puranic accounts, humans coexisted with creatures in some ways resembling the earlier tool-making hominids of modern evolutionary accounts." Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think adding Murray's positive comments without his negative ones is really NPOV. And there really isn't any mainstream support for his ideas about ancient humans, even if some people think his book is well written, etc. There is interest in his ideas as they represent an aspect of Hinduism, but that's different. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis
The following claims would appear be taking Cremo's papers, and making synthetic claims based upon them:

Synthetic claims would appear to include This is problematical given that (i) anything that Cremo actually claims on this would most likely fall afoul of WP:SELFPUB & (ii) most of this appears to be extrapolation of Cremo's claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Extrapolating a couple of "examples" to "mainstream conferences of archeology and history of science, at leading scientific institutions, such as the Royal Institution in London, and some his findings have been published in mainstream academic publications."
 * The claim that the first paper was "presented at the 1994 meeting of the World Archaeological Congress"
 * The claim that it was "peer-reviewed"
 * The claim that the second paper was "presented at a meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists"
 * The claim that the second paper contains examples included in Forbidden Archeology.
 * The claim that "most of the cases he discusses are still in the collections of archeological museums."


 * The last sentence was a response to (I believe innocently) quoting of Morrow incompletely, so I've quoted Morrow in full and removed that sentence. Sure, some of the specimens he misinterprets still exist. I'll look at the rest later. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed the pseudoscience reference at the outset of the first paragraph
I trinsic1 removed the pseudoscience reference at the outset of the first paragraph. Labeling work in this fashion marginalizes Cremeo's Book with a loaded word which is not nessary at the outset. People need to come to there own conclusions of whether its pseudoscince by doing research.

Then Paul H. Undid trinsic1's revision 573482067 stating that my revision was involved in the censorship of valid evaluations of recognized experts.

I trinsic1 undid the revision. If it was censorship I would have removed all instances of pseudoscience. I did not, I removed the first pseudoscience reference because it labels the work at the outset which prevents people from looking at all of the material in the article. The term ‘pseudoscience,’ is a loaded word as it contains political-emotional parameters that are used to outright cast doubt on information that the critic deems unacceptable to ones own world view. You will notice that the main document has references to the pseudoscience reference, That is enough. The person changing my edit Paul H. does so with false motives, claiming it was censorship which it fact was not since the pseudoscience claim is in the main text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinsic1 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it is important to make it clear in the lead what the mainstream thinks about this. The lead is meant to reflect the article. Dougweller (talk)
 * Except there is enough opposing view points in mainstream science to counter the argument that it is pseudoscience. Second its clear enough that some mainstream scientist think its pseudoscience when its in the main text. Trinsic1 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What opposing viewpoints in mainstream science counter the argument it is pseudoscience? You have 2 editors disagreeing with you, you clearly don't have consensus. Now at WP:FTN. Moving this to the bottom where it belongs. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said in the beginning its not necessary in the first paragraph, its up for debate whether or not its pseudoscience. nobody can prove that it is at this point, I looked at the references and most of it is claims of pseudoscience with no evidence to back it up. there is now way to prove either way so you are wrong sorry. Second pseudoscience is a loaded word, as I stated at the beginning of the talk on this page. You cant just label something with emotional terminology to make it look less than creditable without proof.  Trinsic1 (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We would be misleading our readers if we were to fail to indicate that the claims in question here are not merely unusual or controversial, but are reliably described as pseudoscientific. The term is not unduly pejorative or loaded in any way that misrepresents the sources and the consensus of relevant experts. It is worth noting that the site neutrality policy requires that we refrain from introducing a false balance or interjecting our own opinions. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Trinsic1. If you wish to progress this discussion I suggest you answer the very specific question Dougweller has raised: "What opposing viewpoints in mainstream science counter the argument it is pseudoscience?" IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Doug needs to supply solid evidence that what he says is true. There are those who may agree that something is true. That doesn't make it true, or resolve anyone to proving what they say is false. Correct? If the issue of consensus is tantamount, one might consider the consensus of those who see value in religion. Selecting from a group whose members agree on something doesn't make it right. Prisons are filled with people who thought they were right. Those who are incarcerated can form a consensus, but I doubt it is correct. What think Ye? BRealAlways (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to respond to this contribution, because of its ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines, except to say that you should make it clear what you respond to and check how your contribution will look. See WP:INDENT. I corrected your indentation, assuming that you intended to respond to that 2013 text. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

At least a part of this conversation belongs in NPOV. To label is indicative of those who feel capable of doing the thinking for others. If there is no validity in what Mr. Cremo says, then he will not be invited to lecture worldwide. Neutrality should rule where living biographies are concerned, or authors could be construed as harboring resentment and being libelous. Did no one else read and understand the notice at the top of this page? 75.86.176.155 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The above edit is mine. I disabled my VPN (which WP complains about), but didn't sign in. BRealAlways (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is nine years old.
 * At least a part of this conversation belongs in NPOV. I do not understand what this sentence means. You seem to use "NPOV" in an unusual meaning. But all the other sentences do not make much sense either. For example:
 * If there is no validity in what Mr. Cremo says, then he will not be invited to lecture worldwide. That is an extraordinary claim, probably derived from the false assumption that everybody in the world is competent.
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If they say this guy is not doing science, then we say it. No amount of bad reasoning, or even good reasoning, will change that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems as though you are unaware that Mr. Cremo is being invited to prestigious educational institutions. Your assumption might be based in your personal bias that there is no interest in examining alternatives to the current paradigm. Your assumption would be incorrect in this case. I might suggest that you actually research what Mr. Cremo has accomplished in his lifetime if you want to edit material about his life. I don't see that as an unreasonable request, and others might expect just that. Your continued use of negatives are a matter of choice rather than balance. If you have a natural or acquired propensity to negate the accomplishments of others, then I might suggest that you opt yourself out of editing biographical material. Those who harbor resentment of repressed hostility are more prone to character attacks. If you're having difficulty understanding what a person says, it is best practice to ask them what they mean, or request further clarification. Your tone gives the impression of 'cognitive bias'. You present yourself as an authority on all you speak of as though what you say is beyond question. Yet you have difficulty understanding how some of the content here falls under the WP:NPOV directive. I have been inundated with messages highlighting WP rules and guidelines, yet the same rules and guidelines are being violated on a regular basis? NPOV = neutral point of view. Above, there are references to labeling, specifically 'pseudoscientific'. This is a strong claim (and also a point of view) that needs to be supported by something other than "such and such an academic says so". One can say that this is the ONLY view expressed by all of academia, yet the fact remains that the academic giving information must not be bitten by a paradigm: they must be neutral in their point of view. Anything else is bias. Have I explained myself clearly? If not, I can assist you further. Just let me know. It has come to my attention that there are some who hold tightly to the current paradigm of evolution theory. As the author represents an alternative to this theory, any who come here to edit should do so with a neutral perspective. No one would ever learn anything if they each held on to alternatives in full view of alternatives. A careful examination of an alternative doesn't consist of "I have been told by someone else that their paradigm is the only paradigm". Being a credible academic involves the ability to show how a thing is right or wrong. This fact is being overlooked. I am in the process of analyzing one of the references on this basis. BRealAlways (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "It has come to my attention that there are some who hold tightly to the current paradigm of evolution theory"? No shit, Sherlock. In other news, the theory that two plus two equals four is held by 'some'. Along with the theory that Wikipedia article talk pages attract cranks who think that if they use the word 'paradigm' often enough (and/or mention the persecution of Galileo, another favourite tactic), the world will turn upside down, they will be recognised for their genius, and they will be given blanket permission to rewrite Wikipedia to their heart's content.


 * In other news, that ain't going to happen. Seen it before, more times than I can count (i.e. more than four...). Wikipedia doesn't change its entire premise on the basis of some random's poor grasp of reality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"Along with the theory that Wikipedia article talk pages attract cranks ...". Do you mean cranks who just show up to comment on what others are saying (most notably, those who hold to an alternate view) without a desire to improve the article through edits? Ironic that those who do just that are allowed to use the talk pages as a soap box without being called to the carpet. How does that happen? Knowledge filtration? Now tell me about paradigms, and how some people will will filter information (in their own minds) based on them. I'm here talking about article improvement. You're here merely to point out your views. I can only assume you would have me kneeling before your throne. News flash. That isn't happening. If you can find a way to speak about improving the article in some way, please do. I'm not talking about rewriting WP - only the article. Please keep your obtuse comments to yourself. I will also add in reference to an edit above that labeling gives an apparent advantage to the user of labels that is undue. It makes it seem as though they are well versed in the subject material. That is my issue with a source included on the article page. BRealAlways (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is going to end in one of two ways. Either you will voluntarily stop wasting your time (and other peoples') posting this repetitive nonsense here, or you will be blocked, and thus obliged to. Nothing you have said so far hasn't already been said many times before, and it will change nothing. Because it cannot. Whether you like Wikipedia's 'paradigm' or not, whether you like the way Wikipedia defines 'neutrality' or not, and whether you like Wikipedia's processes for determining article content or not, they are what they are, and they cannot be negotiated away on the talk page of a single article. To make the sort of changes you are asking for, Wikipedia as a whole would have to undergo a fundamental restructuring of core principles that have been part of the 'paradigm' for decades now (Wikipedia is in its 21st year). And to propose that (not here obviously, if you really want to do this, by the time you've done the necessary research you'll have figured out where yourself) you'd first have to demonstrate that you actually understood how the process works, and what the relevant existing policies and guidelines are. And then convince people (thousands of them, not just the few commenting here) that any such fundamental changes you propose would be in the best interests of Wikipedia, and of its readers. That's how it is. That's how it works. Not open to negotiation here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversial deletion of sourced content
Hi, User:IRWolfie-. You've reverted several edits, with the brief note "rv controversial deletion of sourced content." Some further explanation (from both sides) might be helpful.

You added back this: "Although Cremo has made very certain claims pointing to not only science but those who support it as being dishonest, Cremo has yet to submit any of his experimental data in support of his claims for peer review." This doesn't seem to be sourced content. If a reliable source has made this complaint, could you please add a citation?

You've restored "some scholars of mainstream archeology and paleoanthropology have described the work as pseudoscience," and you've cited Wade Tarzia's piece. Tarzia, of course, gives the work that label, but his article doesn't cite any scholar of mainstream archeology or paleoanthropology who does, and, as you know, his own field his literature and folklore, not archeology or paleoanthropology. Where then is the source confirming that "some scholars of mainstream archeology and paleoanthropology have described the work as pseudoscience"? I suppose there must be one. Could you find it and cite it?

Also, you've later gone back and changed "some scholars" to simply "scholars," which of course implies "all." Why did you do that? Was "some scholars" wrong? Have all scholars in the field applied to the book this label? Would qualification here be unhelpful?

You've restored "This remarkable compendium of pseudoscience [Forbidden Archeology] is premised on the assumption that modern science is a prisoner of Western cultural and religious biases..." But despite the "Forbidden Archeology" supplied in brackets, the quotation, as I've mentioned, isn't about that book. On what grounds, then, should it be restored?

You've deleted the refs to Murray and Feder and replaced them with a "citation needed." Why? And then you've deleted the text entirely, with the explanation "rm unnecessary tags." Again, why? The deleted statement said, "some critics have acknowledged some positive aspects of the book." Was this not true, and was it not well sourced to articles by authorities in relevant fields, writing in peer-reviewed journals? Did it not add balance?

Why restore "Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education"? In what sense is Tom Morrow "of" the NCSE?

What was wrong with adding in-sentence attribution to Meera Nanda's subjective evaluation of Human Devolution?

In the section listing Cremo's publications, why delete two of his books?

These edits seems to deserve more of an explanation than "controversial deletion of sourced content."

Thanks. Best wishes. Cordially, --O Govinda (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:IRWolfie-, I think your forking Forbidden Archeology into a separate article was a useful and helpful move. Well done! --Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. If you have further issues please bring them up on that articles talk page, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Millions
The book says millions (from the very first page), the sources say millions, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Cremo. 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/20070210155653/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127003309700.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127003309700.htm

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) 15:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Paradigm
Has any of the authoring critics actually read Michael Cremo's "Forbidden Archaeology"? I'm just wondering how objective the text being generated is, in reality. It definitely isn't neutral in any sense of the word. One of the precepts Michael Cremo uses is based on the work of Thomas Kuhn, who authored the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". I see no mention of this fact, which leads me to believe that the resulting criticisms are embodied in Kuhn's description of "the scientific paradigm". The lack of objectivity can be an example of the paradigm of interested parties, which results in a "knowledge filter".

How does an organization touting itself as an objective source of information end up being a repository of subversive personal attacks? The subversive measure is a classic example of "the personal paradigm" in lieu of the "scientific paradigm" (described by Kuhn), by using the terms "fringe", or "pseudo________" when referencing anything that doesn't agree with the accepted paradigm. Using such a mechanism, any information that disagrees with, or disproves, the paradigm is suppressed. The paradigm (regardless of how flimsy it may be) is seemingly supported by ALL evidence because any evidence indicating a weakness is vehemently opposed. Kuhn pointed out that science operating under such a paradigm is stagnant at best. I will assert that according to one of the most cited definitions of science ("No paradigm is absolute"), its practitioners that adhere to any paradigm are hypocrites. It would appear that Wiki administration has adopted hypocrisy under the veil of "reliable sources".

There is a difference between being wrong due to ignorance and being wrong to aspire to a position of power or affluence. If science is now to be based on absolutes, then at some point on the timeline of development, scientists should abandon the position of "relative science". I have often heard evolutionists state that "evolution is a fact". On further inspection, I have found the statement to be premature. When pressured to prove the fact, the conversation turns to silence. This article is a good example of a personal attack on character. What I would like to see is a more objective approach to the material Michael Cremo presents. I will be including references to appropriate authors in support of Mr. Cremo's paradigm. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRealAlways (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV does not require us to be "neutral". Evolution is a fact - this is like saying "gravity is only a theory". See Evidence of common descent. I don't know what authors you intend to add, but they need to meet WP:RS and WP:Fringe. Doug Weller  talk 17:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * So are you saying "neutral" is not neutral? If the guidelines say "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.", how does anyone get the gumption to bend that rule for personal purposes? If a primary guideline is violated, that clearly indicates a personal problem, especially for an admin. All the talk of guidelines and rules are null and void when hypocrites run the show. I'm not entertaining that. Redefining "editorial bias" to suit your personal preferences is a violation of the BRealAlways (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You say evolution is a fact, but is it a scientific (objective) fact? Is it true because you say so, or because Darwin said so? I grant that the same step left out of the Darwinian hypothesis is the one you chastize Michael Creo for in your mind(s) - it seems as though a select group of you have come to some warped concensus on how the article should develop. That is the issue I bring here. There is something called "the scientific method". As can be seen from the general tone, there is some animosity towards the person of Michael Cremo and a general disregard for the scientific method as defined. This is irrespective of any contributions he has made. I can only surmise that your animosity is due to your atheistic (or should I say anti-religious) bent. Just as you imagine I have no "right" to use this talk page as a sounding board for my beliefs, the same is true of you. If you're going to require that I abide by all of the Wikioedia rules, then I'll require that you also abide by all of them.BRealAlways (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe this is relevant to the conversation at this point: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." I sincerely appreciate the "help" being given through directing me to Wiki guidelines, yet there is a clear violation of this talk page focus developing. If you want to discuss your feeling on evolution theory, this is not the place. If you want to discuss improving the article, I'm all for it. If you want to put your dirty laundry out for all the world to see, I do believe that would be at least slightly idiotic. Can we stay on topic please? BRealAlways (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV includes WP:GEVAL, so indeed WP should not present conflicting views as if they had equal validity, — Paleo Neonate  – 21:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have read "Forbidden Archaeology", and it is stupid ignorant bullshit. I have also read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", and there is no connection between both. A book does not become valid science just by mentioning someone serious, and an idea does not become "the new paradigm" when the guys having the idea call it that. The scientific community needs to actually accept it, and that has obviously not happened in this case. Kuhn has explicitly rejected naive misinterpretations of his book, such as the one you are touting here, in follow-up works.
 * Also, this page is not for ranting, it is for making suggestions for article improvement. Your question if there are any "objections" to adding "references to appropriate authors" would be, on its own, useless and far too vague to allow a response, since "appropriate" is a subjective term, and to answer it, one would need to know if you are competent enough to knwo what is appropriate. But all the profringe propaganda that precedes it makes it pretty obvious that those "appropriate authors" will either be other crackpots, or serious scholars quoted out of context. That is the way creationism works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "That is the way creationism works". Where do you get the creationism? Sounds like you're trolling in "the safe confines" of Wikipedia. You seem to have a general disagreement in terms of how progress (or should I say regress) will be made. My call was for objectivity in the article. I don't see any answers. Only nonsense. If you have a problem with creationism, this is not the place to voice your feelings or opinions. Please read my user name and understand the low threshold I have for fakery and nonsense. If you continue to voice innuendo, I will have no other option but to push the nonsense up. BRealAlways (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You said above, that "Forbidden Archaeology" is "stupid ignorant bullshit". Care to give a classic example backing up your assertion? A single good one will suffice. As I said earlier, "How does an organization touting itself as an objective source of information end up being a repository of subversive personal attacks?". Your stupid, bullshit statement is a good overt example of justifying objectivity of perspective. It is no wonder that Wiki has to beg for donations. You might assume that no one is observant of your behavior. That is merely an assumption. Your poverty follows you around. I get the distinct impression that there is a totalitarian regime developing behind the veil of Wikipedia as a conceptual entity. As Wiki states, 'it is the contributions of editors that make Wiki what it is'. If there is a question with respect to my ability to remain objective in a public arena, I'll draw your attention back to your stupid, ignorant bullshit statement. Repetition of nonsense (the meme: profringe) is only an indication that you have prejudiced yourself to act as the censor of this article (a decidedly totalitarian move). I may need to make the language more widely known, as there may be some who would appreciate being informed of the activity here. In fact, what you're involved in is an example of what Michael Cremo calls the "knowledge filtration system", which is essentially holding to the preferred paradigm even though it is failing. Continuing to do something that isn't working (as though it will at some point in the future) is called psychosis. It is a contradiction to logic and reason. If your assertion is that "Wiki is not here to hold to logic or reason", or "We are not here to hold to logic and reason", please remove the reference to logical fallacies, as it doesn't apply. The idea I had was to improve the article. I have been met with little or no encouragement. This doesn't say much for Wikipedia as an organization. I get the distinct impression that most of the "regulars" are only here to rant and discourage others from contributing. Is there a Wiki rule concerning that? Are administrators here to encourage editors and develop their talents, or to discourage them and stifle their creativity? RSVP BRealAlways (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You say you have also read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". As far as there being a connection between the texts, it is obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain that paradigms (as defined) exist in every human discipline (even institutions that are composed of a single person). Yet, in the material sciences, a paradigm will either survive or become extinct based on its adherence to that which nature presents. The treatment Mr. Cremo gives to the Kuhn concept of 'paradigms' is an extension of the prior work, but remaining in the domain of science. If you say that the concept is valid, yet an extension of it is not, then a (possibly imaginary) limit has been placed on the scope of applicability. From your language above, it might be questioned whether you have the breadth of knowledge to delve deeply into any type of philosophy, but I'll humor it anyway (perhaps you are only putting me to an "Is he an atheist evolutionist, or a religious creationist?" test, but either way, you are going beyond the scope of the page in doing so (WP:TALK). Because the concept of paradigms is derived from observation and the study of well known history, it should be sound in context. The context in this case is human endeavor (albeit, in the specific domain of science). If science is a true discipline, then it is applicable in its domain - that of the material universe. As it is, the context does have modifier: humans. The endeavors of humans indicate the abilities of humans. The foundational building block of science is to expand human knowledge. For that, we need nature's assistance. That which we seek must be revealed. If Kuhn has developed a paradigm, then it can be either accepted or rejected in the field of discourse. There are respectable philosophers who have rejected some of Kuhn's findings by applying a critical analysis. Having read Kuhn's work and finding it "informative", or "valid", you may not be aware of its inconsistencies. If you are aware, you give no indication of it prior to my mention. The idea seems to be that you are willing to take it upon yourself to censor any opinions that disagree with yours. An opinionated resource is not a reliable resource. That is one of the principles Wiki holds in high regard. To further elaborate on how a paradigm can exist in non-scientific disciplines, we can (as Kuhn did) look at history. In the political arena, there have been regimes that exploited one race over another. Numerous well known examples can be taken from the colonial era up to the turn of the 20th century. As a specific example, chattel slavery was the operating paradigm prior to Abraham Lincoln. How does one resolve writing the words: 'All men (humans) have God given, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', while chattel slavery was in effect? By the establishment of a paradigm which will be respected by others. Mr Cremo's extension holds because the same paradigm was used during colonization events worldwide. The scope is the realm of human endeavor. The Europeans desired to enslave Africans, while rejecting the comparatively minuscule raising of taxes. They mistreated the other while preserving the best for self. Why? Because a paradigm (consensus) has been established. The extension of consensus-based paradigms holds when applied to institutions other than science from an historical perspective, which inherently implies paradigm use is current. Humanity has not yet been able to transcend the paradigm model.BRealAlways (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a chatroom, and you are treating it as such. Your contribution is far too long, fringey, and boring to read, let alone to respond to in detail. Go read WP:INDENT to find out how to format your contributions. Go read WP:TALK to find out what Talk pages are for. Next time, all your irrelevant chitchat will jsut be deleted. So, follow WP:TALK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have not only read "Forbidden Archaeology, but also I have spent time actually investigating specific types of evidence used to support Cremo's claims about the antiquity of man and found them lacking in scientific merit. The above arguments of Kuhn's ideas is just a version of a fallacy known as the the Galileo Gambit. Paul H. (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you here to express your opinions about logical fallacies, or help to improve the article? It's very nice that you have done so much work. Yet, you only speak in generic terms. Nothing specific of any topic is covered. As I said above, Kuhn was roughly criticized for at least one of his conclusions because it basically implied 'scientists are idiots'. This criticism came from a philosopher, so it should be easy enough to determine that there may have been a serious problem with one of the philosophical underpinnings of Kuhn's conclusions. Mr. Cremo didn't use the particular philosophical assumption which was unsound (thus, inherently limiting its scope of applicability). BRealAlways (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I see a few good edits, quite a few bad ones from the editor. They may not of course return. Doug Weller  talk 09:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will never become a progressive resource if it follows the path you point to, Doug. Again, my intent is to improve the article. This talk page gives some guidelines for it in the heading: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." So far, I have seen scathing criticism of Mr. Cremo's "Forbidden Archaeology", but nothing substantive that I could agree with. At best, that discussion belongs in the talk page for the "Forbidden Archaeology" article. Not here. Again, my call is to improve the article this talk page refers to. So far, all I have received is a negation of the thesis: improve the article. The fact that someone does or doesn't believe in evolution theory, creation or religion is arbitrary. The article needs to be improved. If no one else has anything constructive to contribute to improving the article, I will proceed. Also, I will reiterate what the header states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Thank you. BRealAlways (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Have fun. Don't be surprised if you are reverted. As for evolution, you don't seem to understand the difference between the theory of evolution, which of course is not a fact, and the factual evidence, eg fruitflies. Doug Weller  talk 11:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a potential threat. Why the sour disposition? BRealAlways (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Evolution is science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrsaPanic (talk • contribs) 12:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I do see involvement in justifying evolution theory, but little progress towards making article improvements. In terms of a paradigm leading to knowledge filtration, I see what Mr. Cremo is talking about. That which is personally justified (evolution theory) is force fed to all. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. The list goes on and on. How about less distraction due to personal beliefs and more concentration on article improvement? I did expect to see people coming out of the woodwork to get the Darwinian bait. My suspicions were confirmed. I also had an expectation that someone here might be interested in improving the article. My expectation was not met or exceeded. BRealAlways (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Bait? WP:Trolling is not a good idea. Please also note that talk pages are for improvement of the article, not comments about Hitler and Stalin. Doug Weller  talk 09:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entertaining your strawman. You say I'm trolling while ignoring the Trolls. My comments were not to open a dialog about Tyrannical rulers per se. It was in reference to what is happening here. If you want to dissuade people from editing, make it clear. I have heard that the WP impetus is to develop editors into the best possible contributors. You selected from my edits the thing you wanted to point out - something that has nothing to do with improving the article, but was directed as it appears, to get me out of the editor pool. If you don't want me to edit, you should make that perfectly clear, and not hide it behind WP. You said earlier "Don't be surprised if you are reverted. As for evolution, you don't seem to understand the difference between the theory of evolution, which of course is not a fact ...", which means you are personally involved with going in a sideways direction. Rather than use the page-space for keeping on topic, you voiced your POV. Now you say it was wrong for me to put page editors to the test. I did want to see how serious those who visit this page are. If that violates a WP rule or guideline, I apologize, but it does help to know how serious the people you will be working with are. Back to business, you shouldn't threaten me with the possibility of a revert. Those happen all of the time. At this point, I'm beginning to question your objectivity with this particular article. I might think you hold other things as more important than article improvement. Some of the comments made here indicate a serious disrespect. Might this be the reason for all of the resistance to article improvement? I will also point out that some of the comments made here are potentially libelous to Mr. Cremo, yet it slipped in "under the RADAR". As an administrator, I would think you would be concerned about that. While I appreciate the opinions of others, I have already voiced my concerns about article improvement, and am working towards that goal. The lack of support is just something I'll have to ignore. BRealAlways (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * on the contrary, all editors must ensure that the content of WP articles reflect reliable sources and apply the encyclopedia's policies. Please see WP:FOC.  In relation to evolution, this is also not a forum to discuss it, but evidence of common descent may be a useful starting point.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:BRealAlways is confused about NPOV, confusing it with neutrality towards a subject. We're a mainstream encyclopedia, and we make it clear the Creationism, pseudoarcheology, anti-vaccination, etc. are wrong. Doug Weller  talk 08:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Forbidden Archaeology
The article states: "Forbidden Archeology has been criticized by mainstream scholars from a variety of disciplines.[5]" While this reference/source [5] might be from a mainstream scholar, it is not in a form that could be construed as unbiased. If the idea is to show numerous scholars from various disciplines criticizing this work, then there should be sources from at least 3 disciplines to validate the assertion. The stated "variety of disciplines" places responsibility on the editor to provide a reasonable compliment of sources from the appropriate venue.BRealAlways (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's WP:PSCI policy is about clearly presenting pseudoscience as what it is. WP:PARITY even allows mainstream non-scholarly sources to be used for this if they reflect the scientific consensus (that does not work by polls).  The WP:GEVAL part of the WP:NPOV policy warns against using pro/con argument lists in a way that present them as having equal validity.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC) "I am not here to determine the difference between "real science", and pseudoscience". Improving the article is my goal. You also left out the most important point: that there is only a single reference representing "mainstream scholars from a variety of disciplines". If it is true that there are a large volume of mainstream scholars who object to the work, then the task of compiling 3 of them that are valid and reliable should not be a problem. The single resource [5] is emotionally charged, and doesn't mention Michael Cremo, or "Forbidden Archaeology", as mentioned below. Not sure whether the person writing this section was aware of the fact, but I have made it clear that it is not acceptable as a source for the statement being made. BRealAlways (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

After searching the text of reference [5] Nanda, Meera "Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism and 'Vedic Science'", I couldn't find a single instance of "Michael", Cremo", or "Forbidden". This work can't be used to source the idea that "Forbidden Archeology has been criticized by mainstream scholars from a variety of disciplines.[5]", because Neither Michael Cremo, nor his work "Forbidden Archaeology" are mentioned in it. I recommend that it be removed from the "Forbidden Archaeology" section. This will either require finding alternate sources, or a rewrite of the section. Any suggestions? BRealAlways (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)BRealAlways (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * first, thank you for a practical suggestion. But I can't understand you comment. The citation even contains a quote. And although you say the work doesn't mention Cremo or "Forbidden Archaeology", here's the context of the quote:
 * "A similar defense of the method of bhakti yoga as a legitimate source of holistic knowledge lies at the basis of the enormous mass of writings coming out of the Bhakti Vedanta Institute in the United States, the headquarters of the Hare Krishnas. Michael Cremo, a devout Hare Krishna, has boldly proposed a Vedic alternative to Darwinian evolution. Cremo (2003) claims that human beings have not evolved up from lower animals, but rather fallen, or devolved, from their original unity with the pure consciousness of Brahman. (He and his associates tried to prove that the fossil record actually supports the Vedic time scale of literally millions of years of life on the earth, including human life.) As evidence, Cremo (2003) cites every possible research into the paranormal ever conducted anywhere to "'prove" the truth of holist Vedic cosmology which proposes the presence of a spiritual element in all matter (which takes different forms, thereby explaining the theory of "devolution").
 * This remarkable compendium of pseudoscience is premised upon the assumption that modern science is a prisoner of Western cultural and religious biases, and as a result, Western scientists have created a "knowledge filter" that keeps out the evidence that supports the Vedic cosmology."
 * Cremo is clearly mentioned, but the book is "Cremo, Michael. 2003. Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory. Badger CA: Torchlight. Feuerstein, Georg, Subhash Kak, and David Frawley. 1995. In Search for the Cradle of Civilization. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books." So we need to revise the sentence. I'm sure that can be done.  Doug Weller  talk 08:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Then what is the relevance of: Nanda, Meera "Postmodernism, Hindu Nationalism and 'Vedic Science'", listed as either (a) or (b)? I found a copy of it, but was unable to find a direct reference to the book "Forbidden Archaeology", or anything concerning Michael Cremo. If the other source that exists is a superset of the Meera Nanda work, then inclusion of the Nanda work should support the main source. I'm not seeing that. Also, what of resolving the issue with "multiple disciplines"? The Nanda work doesn't seem to qualify as a source because the objection you cite is 'science'. The text I read was more like an article written for a popular magazine with the objective of swaying the judgment of readers to a particular POV (that of the author). The article only mentioned science as an instrument to divide a people (get them to disagree). What is the reason for including this text in the list of references? It doesn't follow. BRealAlways (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a chapter in an OUP book. Sorry, forgot the link. The OUP isn't know for publishing things written like a popular magazine. Doug Weller  talk 15:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If the (appropriate) source speaks of a different book, then the rewrite will involve more than editing a sentence. The section will have to be removed, and a new one created with the name of the correct book. The source is not a critique of "Forbidden Archaeology". This is beginning to appear less and less fair. If inappropriate sources are being used, how is this getting by the upper echelon? I haven't gone through the history, but I don't see where I should have to. If previous editors have left the article, they should have discussed their material before inclusion. This is confusing. A section was created that doesn't have a single valid source. BTW, I found the Meera Nanda "chapter" in a popular magazine (not a scholarly scientific journal): "Frontline, India's National Magazine" https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30220434.ece Meera does have credentials, but it doesn't seem as though she is using them to the fullest capacity. Her biographical page is as confusing as this one. There are no dates associated with her attaining 2 post graduate degrees. Her "Life and Career" are described in a total of 5 sentences. Reading the magazine article left me with the distinct impression that the author had a chip on their shoulder. I'm still confused. How is this supportive of the neutral POV? There should be a proportionate number of alternate sources, should they exist. I'll look, with the expectation that the original editor of this section was able to find sufficient sources to support the statement "Forbidden Archeology has been criticized by mainstream scholars from a variety of disciplines", and that because of this, the section will not be prematurely removed. BRealAlways (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Nada "chapter" cited in this article is neither from a popular magazine nor scholarly scientific journal. It is an actual chapter 14 of a peer-reviewed book. It is an actual book chapter from the 2005 book, "Scientific Values and Civic Virtues," edited by Dr. Noretta Koertge and published by Oxford University Press. See bottom of page viii, Table of contents for verification of it. The actual chapter occupies pages 220-235 of this book. Paul H. (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)