Talk:Forbidden Archeology

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

Hinduism

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

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

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 like 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 900 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

NOTE -- the example Dougweller refers to with reference to the use of the word "billions," does not claim it as an example of evidence for human beings. The site Doug references is titled, "Anomalous Artifacts." It contains images of other anomalous artifacts as well. There is also a short blurb describing the physical characteristics of this object, and again, there is no mention of evidence for human beings. As for the primary source, there is once again no mention in its 5-paragraph description of this object for human beings on earth billions of years ago. Sdmuni108 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

It is irrelevant where he said it in this instance. Also, there is a secondary source. It is not for us to analyse the book directly, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It is the secondary sources that are referenced for analysis. Sdmuni108 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the specific policy is WP:SECONDARY. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A billion to go?

Concerning billions -- the cited secondary literature does NOT mention that the book under review argues for human beings living on earth **billions** of years ago, much less arguing that the book presents this idea as a "central claim." Perhaps the time has come to delete the pesky "billions." Frankly, the argument for human beings living on earth billions of years ago does not appear in the book, which might offer a rational explanation why so far it has proven difficult finding sources other than the our wiki editors mentioning this alleged "central claim." Wiki is, of course, NOT a forum for original research.

I realize this is a sensitive topic for some. Please discuss where this billion year human life living on earth "central claim" comes from. If someone has in fact made this claim other than a wiki editor, then perhaps we should give direct credit to whoever is responsible. Or short of that, delete the word. Please advise. Sdmuni108 (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Does the referenced Wodak and Oldroyd review discuss "hundreds of millions" as a "central claim"? The only "hundreds" I'm finding refers to hundreds of pages. In any event, my editorial focus is on a lack of billions. Sdmuni108 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Proposed Edit -- "The book's central claim argues evidence for humans living on the earth for millions of years,"

-- meant to replace what is there now -- "The book's central claim is that humans have lived on the earth for millions, or billions, of years,"

The proposed edit is is meant to meet the challenge of finding secondary sources stating that the book's central claim argues billions of years of humans on earth. Please comment if there are any further reservations. Sdmuni108 (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source says " FA argues for the existence of Homo sapiens way back into the Tertiary, perhaps even earlier". That is a time spanning "65 million to 1.806 million years ago". what is in the article is consistent with that. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - Tertiary is no where near close to a billion years ago. The Tertiary period extends from at the earliest, 65 million years ago, to more recently, only 1.8 million years ago. Thus, "Tertiary" would not justify the use of the term "billion." The figure is less than not only a billion, but a hundred million. In addition, neither review uses the term "central claim" in presenting their critique. Sdmuni108 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki, the geological period immediately prior to the beginning of Tertiary 65 million years ago, would the Cretaceous, which closed 66 million years ago, stretching out to a beginning 145 million earlier. There is nothing coming close to suggesting "billions" in the secondary texts being cited and summarized. Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See that part, perhaps even earlier. That is the billion, as Doug has highlighted with more. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps even earlier" than two to 65 million years ago does not justify the use of a phrase like "billions of years ago." Billions is, frankly, astonishingly out of context to what even the other reviewer from the community college suggested in the NCSE newsletter. While Doug's highlight is worthy of consideration, it is an issue neither reviewer considered significant enough to comment upon in their two critiques being cited. Since it is not mentioned in the secondary literature being cited, the use of "billions" sounds like an inappropriate editorial addition.

Would restating the phrase "perhaps even earlier" in the wiki entry create a problem? The two authors of the review in the SSS journal we are considering have also been cited in the wiki entry for using the phrase: "their intention is to document evidence for the existence of modern humans many millions of years ago". The SSS journal is a more formal academic publication than the NCSE newsletter. Sdmuni108 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I just checked, and the site Doug refers to offers no mention of evidence of human life billions of years ago. The site is titled "Anomalous Artifacts," and then there is a two sentence blurb describing the physical characteristics attributed to this particular object. See entry above added under Doug's entry on this talk page, concerning the object under consideration with reference to an alleged idea that someone is arguing for humans on earth billions of years ago -- an idea that does not show up in the secondary literature. Sdmuni108 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if you give me a day, I will look at this in detail and get back to you. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Proposed Edit 2 -- "The book argues evidence for human beings on the earth for millions of years, and perhaps even earlier, and that the scientific establishment..."

Since "Tertiary" does not refer to a period of time billions of years ago (or even hundreds of millions) it remains inappropriate to use the word "billion" in a summary of the contents of these two reviews. Neither do the two secondary sources being summarized use the term "central claim" anywhere in their presentations, rather deferring to the more accurate phrase, "FA argues." With such thoughts in mind, I would like to delete "billions" altogether, and replace "central claim" with "argues." Please respond with any reservations to this proposal. Thanks Sdmuni108 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article to give it a more academic flavor. Hope this is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumila (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you meant to leave out Groves. Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- some reviewers, other reviewrs.. --

some and other reviewers indicates different persons but the whole article is about 4 scientists being critical or have an different view. very repetitive this could be condensed. kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.178.17 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

Did this sell in large numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.203 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALK

Of course I meant WP:TALK in my last edit commentary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so difficult to read WP:TALK? This page is not for uttering your opinion. It is for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk)