Talk:Robert Lomas

Untitled

There were a few problems with this article, as first written, that I have corrected. Most are simply styalistic changes to make it read better. The greatest change was in deleting the statement: "He has now established himself as one of the worlds leading authorities on the history of Freemasonry and science..." I would hardly say that Mr. Lomas has "established himself as a leading authority" on anything other than how to write a best selling book. As far as his "authority" on Freemasonry goes, most historians find his theories to be highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst. Blueboar 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, I accept some moderations to a page I need not have gone to the trouble to add. Some changes are great. I do, however, wish to maintain the factual information about Lewis Masonic because it is a notable publisher as part of Freemasonic history. Thanks to Blueboar for returning it, however I have further returned the good old historical bit since there's no harm at all in presenting this useful historical information to the end-user. :-) I accept the initial response from Blueboar regarding the questionable statement I made surrounding Lomas' significance in Freemasonry and science. I actually agree at removing science - it was far too sweeping - but I would like to return the former claim on part of Freemasonry since statistically the best-selling author is. Blueboar removed a statement about the number of languages worldwide the Hiram Key has been translated in. I wholly accept this for the time being until I source where I came across this important data. Finally, I would like to offer Blueboar the chance to retract his most bizarre statement. It regards his libellous last point and substantial unfounded claim that "most historians find [Lomas'] theories to be highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst". Are you just proving that it isn't just myself who can romantically and quite accidentally make a tad sweeping statement? :-) Moreover, to be quite frank, you are merely subjectively dismissing a statement in a style that can only lead to the beginning of petty policing whereby we may both keep altering the information presented. And besides, I did say "one of the". Dr Lomas' books are very much best-selling. What is your point? Are you saying that this is of no concern when deciding upon the relevance of a person's research? Have you sold your findings around the world millions times over? Oh, and not forgetting the view that your findings might be 'highly speculative' and 'out right rubbish at worst'. Come on, I hardly think theories that are "highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst" would be so well travelled and referenced. Xzrox Wednesday 11th January 2006 @ 3.46 GMT

OK, I admit that I may have indulged in a bit of Hyper-ventallation there. My statement was indeed 'a bit sweeping'. But at least I kept my sweeping statements on the Talk page where they belong, and did not put them into the article itself. That said, I do not totally retract my concerns and edits ... It does not matter how popular Mr. Lomas's ideas are among the general public, nor how many copies of his book he has sold. It is true that Lomas's theories on the history and developement of Freemasonry are NOT accepted by the majority of Masonic Historians. It is simply incorrect to call him a "leading authority" on the subject. Not even the addition of "one of the" will make it true ... my objection is to the word "authority". However, he certainly is one of the leading "authors" on the subject, and with that change, I will let the statement stand.

As to some of my other (less controversial) edits: I took out (twice, now) the statement that Knight and Lomas were the first to publicise the connection to Rosslyn Chapel... they were not. The very sentence that this statement appeared in contradicts this: "Rosslyn Chapel, which is a place long been famous for its possible connections to Freemasonry and its attendant rituals..." How can Rosslyn be "a place long famous for its connections" if that connection was first publicised in The Hyram Key - a book which is less than 10 years old! I am sorry, but several authors beat Mr. Lomas to the punch: see John Robinson's "Born in Blood", and Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" just to name the more "popular" (and therefore "authoritive" by your definition) books which discuss the topic.

As for your concern over the my removal of the fact that The Hyram Key appears in several languages... I simply felt that that was irrelevant information. Blueboar 17:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I added a controversy section to point out to readers the criticisms of Lomas' work. This is my first major addition to the Wikipedia, so please do what's necessary if I have wrecked NPOV. I think what I wrote is fair and accurate. Intelligent Masons don't buy into the poor scholarship. In my opinion, the profit from book sales is Lomas' motivation.

Controversy and POV

I note that the controversy section has devolved into a "who likes Lomas and who doesn't" sniping contest. Much of what was added was POV... on both sides of the argument. First, many of the statements were not about Lomas or his work, but about the people commenting on it (such as the statements about the "United Grand Lodge of America being critical of AASR SJ.) (by the way... what is the UGLA? As far as I know there is no such beast?... at least not in regular recognized Masonry... but I digress). Anyway... I have pared the section back to plain verifyable statements of Fact... some people do not agree with Lomas (short list), others do agree (short list). If you need to expand on these facts, please keep focused on positive and negative comments about LOMAS and his work... not positive and negative comments about the commentators. Blueboar 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

trend

There seems to be atrend occurring whereby one or two editors of various articles relating to freemasonry are choosing to insert highly POV material into encyclopedic discussions. Whatever incidents may have caused the formation of the Unite Grand Lodge of America, wiki is not a soapbox for addressing these concerns. A number of UGLA persons have lamented in various foums how due process is not being followed in various US jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and then here on wiki we see what appears to be a UGLA supporter trying defy community guidelines regarding how the encyclopedia should be modified. For example, the need for NPOV, and the need to avoid personal attacks.--Vidkun 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

---

The United Grand Lodge of America is irregular and clandestine. It is not in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England or any other Regular Grand Lodge, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, some of the editors of this article think it's a personal attack to say that Lomas uses the creeping assertion fallacy (saying "It seems that Hiram was a pharoah" and then later claiming "We've proven that Hiram was a pharoah."). If Lomas had evidence, then his claims would be valid. I'll sit and wait for such evidence. . . Prewitt81

POV again

My brothers... irregular or regular as you choose... I would like to ask you all to back up a second and think. This article is a biographical sketch of Robert Lomas. It needs to focus ON Mr. Lomas, and not on what we may think about him or his work. Now, I think the "controversy" section is valid, but only because his work has engendered controversy. We need to keep this NPOV. It is fair to say that X group thinks Lomas's theory is flawed, while Y group diagrees and thinks his theory is valid. The statements need to be cited, but they are fair statements. It is not fair or NPOV to say B group thinks that C group is full of crap or visa versa. Please... let's keep this focused on Mr. Lomas and his theories and not on our personal agendas. This relates to both Lomas supporters and Lomas detractors. If you need to do so, please read WP:NPOV. Finally... Please remember that this is not a lodge meeting. Regularity does not matter here. NONE of us are Masons here... we are all nothing but fellow editors. As such we should be civil and work together to create a good article. I'll step off my soapbox now. Thank you. Blueboar 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems this entire page is slowly becoming a vanity page, as the additions of information by Martin Faulks and Peter Gower (wiki editors) seem to directly refer to an interview by Peter Gower of Martin Faulks. Isn't this what is considered original research?--Vidkun 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the history, it started out as a vanity page. The original read like a promo for the Hiram Key. Blueboar 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

General comments

I've added disambiguation to the intro, Lomas is a Business lecturer not a profesisonal historian, the intro as it stood lent more weight to his authority than was appropriate.

The article needs a more complete list of his work, at the moment it focusses only on Masonic titles, his marketing and IT work needs to be listed as well, unfortunately his own website doesn't list them.

I've removed the UGLA link as linkspam. It's not referred to in the article and it looks to be irregular, associating him with it does him a dis-service.

This needs a lot of structural work and some content work to reduce POV, at the moment it is a vanity page but it is notable enough to need to be here.ALR 13:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

additional question

It poses little impact to the article itself, but the interview of Martin Faulks was conducted by "Peter Gower"??? Peter Gower is the name used in a number of Masonic exposes, and occasionally as the example name in some Masonic cypher books and monitorial works instead of "Mr. A. . . B. . .", and is said to be a corruption of Pythogoras. That interview is considered a serious piece of work?--Vidkun 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the link the interview was for 'The Ashlar', which is a Scots Masonic magazine. I get the mag and don't recall the article, but it can be pretty dry sometimes with lots of detailed histories of temples and museums. Notwithstanding that I don't recall having seen the name in anything else, except as a user name of someone who did some flyby edits in a number of articles. The section needs reworded as it's pretty POV at the moment, in fact the wording probably constitutes weaseling. I don't know of many serious Masons who place much value in Lomas' work and given that he's not a professional historian then it's a fair stretch of the imagination to come up with the link.ALR 19:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Bitterness towards Robert Lomas

Looking back on previous edits, the original seems fine. I don't actually see any problem. And I don't see why it has to be turned in to some kind of attack at this historian. - THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Lomas is not a historian, he writes fantasy novels which masquerade as historical research. Yes, it would seem Lomas dabbles in lots of fields, but so do lots of people; at professional levels. For the sake of example, would you say Bill Gates can only be one of a coder, a philanthropist, a businessman, a speaker? Come off it. The changes look bitter, especially when making claims such as 'amateur historian' - be careful when using such terminology - and Lomas would appear to be more of a professional in the field of freemasonry than business when you look at his bibliography and aclaim he has received in the fields he writes. Don't fall in to the trap of only citing/taking on board negative criticism of artists because it looks subjective. The revert is fine because it makes a simple point whilst not displaying any bitterness towards this person. I don't see any reason why it needs to be altered again. 18:43, 13 May 2006 (BST)

After more thought, "Robert Lomas is a British writer and academic", end of. It's clear, it's succinct. An NPOV is actually wasted here. 18:54, 13 May 2006 (BST)

given that the previous version was little more than an advert I would dispute the suggestion that previous versions were an improvement. Lomas is not recognised as an authority within Freemasonry, indeed an serious student of Freemasonry recognises that his work is predominantly fictional. Therefore I've added back the tag.ALR 19:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It bis important to bear in mind that the works of Dr. Lomas and Messers Knight, Baignet, Leigh, SInclair and Wallace-Murphy are not historical studies, they are novels based on a confabulation of wishful thinking, failure to assess source material critically and, to a considerable extent, a desire to make a lot of money from the credulous. No historian worth her (or his) salt is likley to give these novelists the time of day. As for Dr. Lomas being a 'leading authority', it is worth bearing in mind that his total disregard for historiographical or historiological process rather undermines his claims, or, for that matter, claims made on his behalf. The Templars/Roslin chapel fantasies that have proved so popular over the last 20 years or so are derived solely from the romances of Father Hay in the 1700s. They are not history in any sense, merely romatic tales. (comment added at top of page by User:81.155.32.194 19:41, 26 June 2006... Moved here by Blueboar.)

Megalithic Yard and Columbus

The folling lines were added to the end of the "controversy" section:

• Lomas has also proven his critics from detailing his technique upon the Megalithic Yard. As well the fact that columbus was not the first to find America.

I have removed them not because I disagree in any way... but because I have no idea what they are trying to say... the sentence structure of the first sentence is so muddled that it makes no sense... does it mean Lomas proved his critics wrong? Did he prove them right? What does "proven from detailing" mean? And what is Lomas's technique on the Megalithic Yard? etc.Blueboar 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Outline of books

I am wondering if we really need such in depth descriptions of Lomas's books ... I think these would work better as seperate articles on each book. We could provide a shorter synopsis here if it is needed. Blueboar 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

I think the article is much less POV now, so I have removed the tag. If you object, replace it, but please say why. Blueboar 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis of Books

This section takes up a great deal of the article and is completely unreferenced. I don't think this much detail is necessary - pertinent points covered in secondary sources can be worked in to the prose of the article. Does anyone know offhand where these summaries might have come from or what references were used to write them? What do you think of drastically shortening that bit? Shell ^babelfish 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Should he be called a "pseudohistorian"

I provided a citation to back up the fact that Lomas's work has been classified as "Pseudo-history". It was removed as being "libelous and incorrect". That may be... but we are not the one's making that claim. We are simply repeating what others have said. And it isn't just one source... Here is another. As much as some may not like it, Lomas's work is considered to be pseudo-history. We should mention that fact. Blueboar 19:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tags used by online book stores don't meet the stringent guidelines for excellent sources required by WP:BIO; the opinion of a book-seller might be appropriate, but only in the case of a reliable and reputable organization like Barnes and Noble for example. If there is a reliable secondary source using that term, we can mention that criticism - however, since this doesn't appear to be a majority view its not likely to need space in the lead and should be directly attributed to the critic as opposed to being made as a general statement. Shell ^babelfish 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said Shell. "I was only following somebody else's orders" has never been a valid defense.If interviews from the British Broadcasting Corporation, which notes Lomas's work has produced a number of best sellers is not considered evidence to support the use of "best-selling" in the introduction the comments of a few fringe booksellers seem even less valid. I would suggest we keep to facts in the Introduction and Background and keep the comments for the work itself or the controversy section. Using Wikipedia pages to simply attack somebody you don't like or even bulling up somebody you do like brings the whole project into disrepute.

This is not a case of attacking someone I don't like... but of presenting accurate information based on reliable sources. Lomas's books are indeed best sellers, and it is correct and proper to call them such (and to call Lomas a best selling author)... but they are also poorly recieved by mainstream historians and are often called pseudo-history. It is correct to mention that as well. I can agree that a tag by an online book store, and another by an independant library categorization website may not be the most reliable of sources... I will look for others. Blueboar 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence I have added to the article, showing that Lomas's views on the formation of the Royal Society and its links to Freemasonry are respected enough for him to be invited to give a Wednesday evening Public Lecture at Gresham College, which is the third oldest University in Britain after Oxford and Cambridge is a fact. The lecture was well-received (I was present and saw it) and has been incorporated into the distance learning program of Gresham lectures as per reference. Blueboar, if you are sincere in your search for reliable sources to prove or disprove Lomas's attitude to facts you will ake the trouble to view the lecture, you will notice that the Gresham Professor who introduces Lomas praises his all-round scholarship and achievements in IT and Fire Brigade Command and Control. At no time is any suggestion made that Lomas invents false facts (which is the implication of pseudo) to support his viewpoint. Lomas is controversial and people either seem love him or hate him, but it is his views which are questioned not his knowledge of facts. I submit that in the light of this evidence Blueboar you should ceases your campaign to label an honest, if free-thinking scholar, with a libelous label in the introduction to a page on him and keep comments on Lomas's conclusions to the controversy section where they belong. You will find plenty of people who hate him and call him names in the Masonic establishment and I agree it is fair to report them, but likewise if WIkipedia is ever to be taken serious is should maintain a clear line between facts and opinion. The opinion that Lomas is a fraud is not one shared by the UK academic establishment or he would not have been given the honor of being asked to deliver a Public Lecture at Gresham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.68.134 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was not talking about the Masonic establishment... the article already states that some of them call his work pseudo-history and that some don't. I was talking about historians in general (both masonic and non-masonic). However, I do understand your comment about fact vs. opinion. When I find more on this, I agree that it should be stated as an opinion. Blueboar 13:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get real. Gresham College has no students, grants no degrees, teaches no courses, and is in no way a University. Nor does it claim to be one. It calls itself "an independently funded educational institution" Lomas needs to be categorised under pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology. Those are standard Wikipedia categories and clearly apply to Lomas. Nor is Gresham the 'third oldestr' University in Britain, Glasgow, St. Andrews, King's and Marischal of Aberdeen and perhaps Edinburgh are all older than Gresham.

Categorization

Continuing on the discussion above, we now seem to be edit warring over whether to categorize Lomas as a "Historian of Freemasonry". Lomas's books are clearly pseudohistory. His works are conjectural and filled with suppositional leaps of logic (The Ancient Egyptians had certain beliefs... suppose that these beliefs influenced early Christianity... Now suppose that the early Christians had hidden texts that demonstrate this which they hid under the ruins of the Temple... The Knights Templars might have found them... since there is a legend that the Freemasons might be decendants of the Templars... therefore there is a direct connection between the Ancient Egyptians and Freemasonry). This is not History! This is pseudohistory. We can not call Lomas a "Historian of Freemasonry". Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not suppose Lomas is taken seriously as a "historian of Freemasonry" by anyone. If he is, academic reviews should be presented. Until then, his works on freemasonry should be considered speculative fiction fantasy literature. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculative fiction is fine as a category. It verges on pseudohistory but there is no reason to include such a pejorative term in a biography of a living person whose works are clearly distinguishable from mainstream history.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance and references needed

This article seems unbalanced. There is info on his background - then all else refers to 'controversies'. Usually, controversy accompanies influence; where is the information on this? I added a couple of citation requests because as it stands, the text in the controversies section appears to present synth and original research.

Some demonstration of his influence is given here - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xmkJmYkwMWAC&lpg=PA97&dq=robert%20lomas&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While Lomas is a "serious and objective academic" in business studies and solid state physics, few would agree in the context of Masonic History, your reference seems highly speculative itself. However, the "Controversies" heading seems POV. Lomas is indeed controversial, but references are harder to find. Quatuor Coronati try to ignore him, and the British Columbia and Yukon articles all seem to have been written by the same person. UGLE lodges are discouraged from linking to anything by Lomas, but this has never been formalised, and is usually a quiet word to the webmaster. It would probably be better to retitle the section and concentrate on the speculative nature of his historical work. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the ref I gave advanced his academic status within the Masonic research (even though it appears to do that), but offered it as a demonstration of his influence on others writers which might be useful. I think there has to be good references to hand for the article to report negatively on his professional reputation; perhaps - as you suggest, consider a rewrite that demonstrates his approach is non-maintsream by reference to his works or reviews, but steers clear of any potentially libellous allegations that he doesn't have a good reputation within his field of research, unless there are verifiable reports of this being the case. Regards, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 23:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Another link that might be useful for comments in the article because it reproduces a published review. The comment "The romantic nature of his writings are reminiscent of other famous masonic authors such as the late J. S. Ward and Arthur Edward Waite" is problematic - probably true but is it verifiable? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, the ref may be from his site, but it summarises how Lomas' supporters see his writing. I've scrapped the first half of the section, retitled it, and given examples of the extremes of criticism. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say its a good ref for showing that angle. It seems a lot better to me now, but I was twitching to make a few minor edits and rewrite the comment given to ref 7, because I can't see how you get that from the review. I'll go ahead and make those changes, but feel free to revert anything if you don't consider it beneficial. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say this could probably do with a bit of padding, but it's much more objective.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Liked your last edit, and agree with your last point. I know nothing about this author, BTW, or any of his works, but it stricks me that this could be developed into a very interesting bio if someone felt inclined to do that. Pity there are no images available in Wikimedia commons though. I wish book publishers had the sense to use Wikimedia commons to deposit images of books and authors, so editors here could get access to copyright free pictures for these sorts of pages. Cheers, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the input and much needed perspective. I know Bob better as a lecturer - to be frank, The Hiram Key put me off - but he doesn't deserve the petty name-calling that debates on his stuff often descend to. He is an entertaining writer with an impish sense of humour that isn't immediately obvious in his published work, and unlike his more vocal critics, he doesn't take himself particularly seriously. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that is most difficult to reference. All the best.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Category: Pseudohistorian

Given that Lomas’s work is routinely criticized as Pseudohistory, it seems appropriate to include him in Category:Pseudohistorians. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Works of pseudohistory often rely exclusively on sources that appear to support the thesis being promoted while ignoring sources that contradict it. Many works of pseudohistory treat myths, legends, and other unreliable sources as literal historical truth while ignoring or dismissing evidence to the contrary." Lomas's work that mentions Myths and legends actually state they are myths. He is a valid and recognised academic person. I believe just because some people who have not read his work claim his work is pseudohistory is not sufficient to tag him as one, when it is libellous. Several people have accused him of being a Lizard person, but it would be wrong to add a category of "lizard person" as it is to tag him as a Pseudohistorians. Penddraig (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

CV

Per WP:NOTCV articles usually don't keep long publications list. It would be a good idea to select notable items only. —PaleoNeonate – 06:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering if the bibliography should be split to its own page similar to other authors. Penddraig (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Source for school.... is there anything beyond his website anyone has access to?

"According to his website, Lomas is a regular supporter of the Orkney International Science Festival, having lectured there, chaired sessions, and taken part in the school's support sessions over a period of eight years."

It seems incredibly odd to me that such a thing could not be either verified or disqualified. Either there's records proving this to be the case or there isn't and if there isn't then that fact needs to be added ("Despite no record of his attendance Lomas' website claims he is a regular supporter [etc]". I'm unfamiliar with the man or his work so I'll see what I can do to fact check as I have no bias here (I simply thought it was a strange sentence that begged the question of whether or not it was true) AeonFluxus (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)