Talk:Forbidden Archeology

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hinduism Start‑class

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative Views Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Creationism Start‑class Low‑importance

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

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

The history of this page

Though this article is new, it has a history. It was created, I believe, on 12 October 2013, largely with content transferred here from two other articles: Michael Cremo and especially Richard L. Thompson. Editors both junior and senior, and with differing points of view, invested a fair amount of thought, effort, and discussion into the Forbidden Archeology section of those articles. So editors new to this page may wish to look through the Talk and History pages of Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, especially for times prior to 12 October 2013.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of millions

Billions is suggested in fact, although only once.[1]. And you can't dismiss what Cremo says about a book he co-authored, eg "presence going That far back in time. In our book 'Forbidden Archeology,' my coauthor Rchard L Thompson (Sadaputa Dasa) and I documented extensive evidence. In the form of human skeletons, human footprints and human artifacts, showng that humans Hke ourselves have inhabited the earth for hundreds of mllions of years, just as the Puranas tell us. This evidence is not very well known because of a process of knowledge filtration that operates in the scientific world. Evidence that contradicts the Darwinian theory of human evolution is set aside, ignored, and eventually forgotten."[2]. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - the sphere in question is attributed to a geographic layer that is in the billions. But as you said, the term "billion" is considered in light of this one artifact. It would appear unbalanced to argue that only one artifact, out of hundreds otherwise discussed, encapsulate's the main argument of a 750 page book. For sure, Cremo has mentioned many things while marketing the work. Thompson was only directly involved with co-authoring the first edition. I would suggest that also needs to be considered - what is published in the the actual book, at least when considering Thompson as co-author. Otherwise, quotations perhaps best be attributed to the person who actually spoke them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 17 October 2013

"WADE TARZIA STATES" - I unfortunately do not yet know how to start a new topic heading. The billions number with reference to central arguments in the work remains problematic. For example, the previous article description describes how the book wishes to argue humans existing on earth "billions" of years ago. But no such statement exists in Wade Tarzia's review, which is the source cited for this alleged central point. Coincidently, Tarzia neither uses the phrase "central point," but rather a less sensationalized phrase describing the book "argues that..." Perhaps best to go with what Wade Tarzia actually said, particularly as he is an established scholar, albeit one who teaches at a community college, and not an ideological polemic. Sdmuni108(talk) 20:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I just moved this talk page entry to the "hundreds of millions" heading - it seems more appropriate. Hopefully that is ok. Thanks. As an aside, I'm looking at the "Introduction" to Forbidden Archeology right now, and there is no mention of "hundreds of millions" in this section that introduces the work and its main arguments. I do see an example of an anomalous paleolith found in a layer dating "anywhere from 2.5 to 55 million years" (p. xxvii). There is another artifact dating "5-25 million" (p. xxvi) as well as "25-38 million" (p. xxviii). That appears to be the upper limit presented here, and these examples all involve anomalous paleolithic tools, and not human remains. Meanwhile, concerning human fossil remains, "the homo sapien fossils" at the Tongzi site in South China are considered "at least 100,000 years old. Additional faunal evidence suggests a maximum age of about 600,000 years" (p. xxxiv). There may well be older examples discussed elsewhere in the 1996 "first edition, revised" 914 pages, but the "Introduction" does not feature them as part of the main argument. Sdmuni108 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your deductions from primary sources are irrelevant. We do not use original research on wikipedia. We summarise what the secondary sources say. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With this concern in mind, why is "billions" still present in the text? The word "billions" is not present in the secondary research cited, as has already been discussed. Neither does the Social Studies of Science essay use the term with reference to the book. The argument you are presenting suggests the term "billions" needs to be deleted in the present context. I appreciate your feedback on this matter. Sdmuni108 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A marketing website?

That description is deceptive - it's a website run by one of the authors, Michael Cremo, and should be clearly attributed to him. It does not matter what type of site it is as it is Cremo's website, and describing it as a marketing website is clearly denigrating it as a source. And the way it is now it makes Wade look like a source for saying it is a marketing website. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just to make it clear, Sdmuni108 (talk · contribs) has been obviously editing logged out. Probably accidental but it's important to know. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm logged in now. For better or worse, Wiki editing is not a primary activity of mine. The site in question appears to be a marketing effort for selling the book, as per the links on the page. As you mention, it is part of a promotional website. Why would someone consider it denigrating to market a book? In any event, that is the source of the quotation. Sdmuni108 (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The secondary sources say millions, Cremo says millions, ergo we should say millions, (WP:NOR) IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the source of the quotation is the question under discussion. Sdmuni108 (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are using one of the authors own works to describes it. There is no issue with the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Directly citing a source for a quoted text is desirable. Apparently, it is from a cite affiliated with one of the co-authors, and not directly from the book. Sdmuni108 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]