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 sourcedmust 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.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
I am wondering whether Temple based his book the Sirius Mystery on original research (did he study the Dogon himself), or did he base it on the work of Griaule? I think it would be useful to mention this, to get a better understanding on the origin of the controversy on the Sirius and extraterrestrials story.--User:AAM | Talk 11:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Temple conducted no original research among the Dogon to write The Sirius Mystery. His preface makes it clear and he freely admits that his work is based on Griaule and Deiterlen. However, after the book was already written and published, he may have went on to do some original research among the Dogon, I haven't looked into that yet. The article is a stub and anyone is free to expand it/rework it. I'll do so soon. In the preface, Temple also details how & when he was first introduced to the Dogon and their mythology: in 1965, while he was still a student of Sanskrit and Oriental Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, one Arthur M. Young, "the inventor of the Bell helicopter", showed Temple a book, African Worlds (edited by Daryll Forde, Oxford University Press, 1954, pg. 83--110) — which included a chapter on the Dogon written by Griaule and Dieterlen — and pointed out a passage which briefly discussed the beliefs that the Dogon had concerning Sirius and its invisible companion. This piqued Temple's interest, and he eventually tracked down Griaule's and Dieterlen's works, to study more; by 1967, he began to write what would become The Sirius Mystery, finally published in 1976. In this period (up to 1976 at least), he was not doing original research among the Dogon, but rather studying Griaule and Dieterlen, and looking into ancient Egyptian mythology, etc. Alexander 007 16:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible then, that the entire Sirius-story with the extraterrestrials only comes from Griaule? That Temple amplified this idea, that was then taken over by many others as it was a popular book (I think)? That would be interesting. Do you know of other independent sources that would support the Sirius story? If Temple did some research later on it would be interesting to know if he would have reported on it and whether this would still support his original book.--User:AAM | Talk 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Griaule or Dieterlen ever used the term: extraterrestrial, but I do think that Griaule is the first source that we have that records the Dogon beliefs that have since led to extraterrestrial speculations. I don't know of an earlier source, and I don't know whether Temple went on to do original research among the Dogon or whether he later changed his views. These are all interesting questions to further research. Alexander 007 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've gotten myself involved in so many articles that I don't think I will expand Robert K. G. Temple anytime soon. Any takers? Everything I wrote above can be verified in Temple's preface to The Sirius Mystery. Alexander 007 19:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no indication that Temple meets any of the criteria for notability. Pursuant to the absence of references and the absence of indications that he is even notable in new-age circles I am proposing deletion.Simonm223 (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I have just read WP:BIO and WP:GNG and cannot agree with Simon223's negative conclusion. Granting the Temple entry is a stub, his continous career on the fringe in New Age activities since 1976 as an author of several books and speaker at various conferences establishes his Notability among that set of authors that includes Immanuel Velikovsky and Zecharia Sitchin. In a sense, Temple is closer to the mainstream of scholarship in his chosen fields than either Velikovsky or Sitchin. Temple's ideas have been the subject of criticism by a number of skeptics qua debunkers over the years (I do not have access to examples in the moment; later) while his first book, The Sirius Mystery, was cited favorably by Victor Clube and Bill Napier in their The Cosmic Winter (1990) for the contents of one the appendixes. It would be better to improve the entry than to delete it, IMO. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence for any of those claims in the references or in the article. The references are a single article in a magazine and a single new age website. I've had more media coverage than that and I am not notable by wikipedia standards. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Temple isn't even remotely deletable. I've removed the prod template. --TS 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave it for a while to give you time to find some RSes but if the article doesn't improve quickly I'll AfD it as there is still no proof but your say-so that he is notable.Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
As for the FRAS reference this is not relevant to WP:BIO and WP:GNG. IF trying for WP:PROF you might try it for WP:PROF notability except, " As a result of the society's foundation in a time before there were many professional astronomers, no formal qualifications are required." so FRAS does not constitute notability under WP:PROF either.Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And he's notable because of his writing career, not his academic one so please let's keep WP:PROF out of this discussion.
As for WP:GNG, just the Nature article --linked above-- alone was referenced 63 times (see this) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have seen more protestations that Temple meets notability standards but there are no new references added to the article so I'm putting an AfD through.Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Where are the protestations? They should be here at this talk. You are free to present it to AfD although 'no new references' is not a valid reason to delete an article. People would just tell you "work on it". -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Claims of references =/= references in the article. I don't believe the article meets notability criteria. It falls to the people who want to keep the article to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. This was not done so I AfD'd it. Should it survive AfD and be brought to Wikipedia's standards I will have no further complaint with it.Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this fight, but StumbleUpon just sent me to an article he wrote about the Sphinx. The article seemed odd to me. I wondered who this guy was, and was pleased to find an answer in Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is more useful for including it.waltke (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Given some of the non-entities with huge Wiki pages, I think there are far better cases for deletion than RKGT! However that is my opinion. Remember too that Wiki can be at the mercy of time and its contributors naturally tend to be more aware of their own time. It can be difficult to perceive how influential or popular an author may have been in their time. I recall Erich Von Daniken had his work, "Chariots of the Gods" vigourously debunked by the BBC in an episode of "Horizon" called "The Case of the Ancient Astronauts" broadcast on the 25th of November 1977. Nevertheless Von Daniken, despite the BBC's hatchet-job on his book and reputation, supports a healthy Wiki article. I also seem to recall the BBC broadcasting another show (it may have been Horizon also but I cannot recall) investigating "The Sirius Mystery" with considerably more sympathy to RKGT's work. So RGKT was fairely mainstream. All that said I would rather trawl through endless junk on Wiki in the hope of satisfying my curiosity than think the more obscure had been redacted because it doesn't fit. Deletion? Doesn't that really defeat the purpose of Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)