User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 7

Good Article sweeps: Great Pyramid of Giza

Hello, I am reviewing Archaeology articles as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force GA sweeps. I reviewed Great Pyramid of Giza today and placed the article on hold for a week to allow for my concerns to be addressed. I am contacting you because you have been a major contributor to the article and may be able to help. The reassessment can be found at Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1. Please get in touch or comment on the reassessment page if you have any questions. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have extended the hold because you said you wouldn't be available for a week. Not much remains to be done, but it would be great if you could take a look at the review (I have summarized the remaining issues at the bottom). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotr Michelowski re: Sitchin

Mr. Weller, Glad to see how fast you picked up on Michelowski's critiques of Sitchin's ideas on Usenet 13 years ago. At the time M. did not favor their being formalized or permanently archived, but the archiving happened anyway--and glad for that! I cannot believe Sitchin has such staying power with the New Agers and Atlantis Rising readers considering how patently absurd the notion that the Nefilim evolved on Nibiru sooner than we did on Earth when Nibiru spends 99% of its time beyond the orbit of Pluto where it is very cold and dark, unlike conditions on Earth. And when The Twelfth Planet was first published, on p. 209 S. mentioned our seasons as due to our changing distance from the Sun instead of caused by the tilt of Earth's axis--how scientifically illiterate does that sound? And to think that in Jan. 1997 when S. spoke at Dave Talbott's neo-Velikovskian conference in Portland, Oregon, S. was getting a $12,000 appearance fee, while Richard Hoagland cancelled his participation because he does not share the program with S. And so it goes. BTW: Did you post to talk.origins in the mid-90s during the Velikovsky-Saturnist threads initiated by Dave Talbott, Ev Cochrane, Ian Tresman, Ted Holden, et al.? Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually kept M's posts and reposted them a couple of times. Yes, I was a bit involved in the V-S discussions. What ever happened to Ted Holden? His mind finally waste away? :-) I recall a number of exchanges I had with him. Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought your name sounded familiar. Talk.origins has really changed and hardly anyone from the "Great Debate" posts there recently. Ted Holden is still around being obnoxious on Velikovsky and related pages such as Worlds in Collision editing as an IP address or as IceBear and still pushing the same old discredited notions, esp. the 15% heat excess on Venus reported by Fred Taylor in 1980, but later shown to be the result of instrument failure. Last November or thereabouts he was banned (or whatever the sanction is) from editing Wikipedia. Feline1 has been a good monitor/editor in neutralizing IceBear's nonsense, among other editors. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell

My removal of content from the Talk:John Michell (writer) page was wrong-headed, and I apologise for it. There have just been so many instances of dishonest alteration of my contributions by SageMab, and removals of my contributions, including when he has repeatedly tried to remove an RFC that I posted, that in exasperation I reverted to the state of the article before about six of his edits. I should not have done this, but so far I have been the only person trying to counter this guy's attempt to turn the article into a piece of hero-worship in which any mention of John Michell's relationship to the fascist ideology of Julius Evola is wiped clean off the slate.

I have now added back (to the Talk page) my original section on this, and also the RFC that I posted (to which I have also appended comments, but making it crystal clear what is the neutrally phrased RFC and what are my comments). If these - or indeed any other bits - get removed, as they are very likely to at the hands of SageMab, please could you carry out your threat and issue a temp block - thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I will try to keep an eye on it.  I don't agree with SageMab's actions. I wish I could find a reliable source on Michell and Evola, all I can find is blogs. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug, this fellow is not telling the truth about my edits.  Other editors on his talk page (he blanked it) and on the discussion page of John Michell edited out his edits and warned him against vandalism and flame warring.  I did not. After reading other editors edits of him I did edit out his name calling. I did tell him his conclusions were not based on fact and I was not convinced of the verifiability of his statements. he used imflammaory words about this author like follower and colleague and fascist without having Wiki facts to back it up.  I have read the two books he is referring to and he is incorrect.  I neuralized some of his inflammatory words about this author.  read HIstory of the John Michell Talk page. This user is the one threatening me and the one tring to start a flame war.  he posted threats that he had no authority to do so on my user page.  Clearly, he does not know Wiki policy and is attempting to strong arm this article to reflect his opinion.  Note the word opinion please. This user does not sign his name and often does not sign is anon ISP in an attempted to circumvent "undo".  His entire account is the John Michell pages. I will assume good faith on your part and I thank you for your comments. By no stretch of the imagination is John Michell a fascist. On the contrary. His lenthy career is telling. I have no vested interest in this author nor "hero-worship" which is a nasty term the previous editor is throwing out.  I do enjoy reading this author and I have read many of his books.  It is a fact that if a author receives many laudatory notices about his work from reliable and scholarly sources it does not make the Wikipedia editor who includes those facts a fan. SageMab (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller, in all good faith I'd like to remind you of no personal attacks.  I don't agree with DougWeller's actions, to paraphrase your non specific comment to me above. SageMab (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this an echo of my comment to you warning you that by virtually calling another editor a liar, and calling yet another editor's summary venomous, plus a few other comments on editors, you were breaching WP:CIVIL? Doug Weller (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment to Dieter Bachmann was between him and me.  He is quite capable of defending himself.  You have no idea what this referred to in the past when you jumped and slung the word "liar" around.  This did not concern you; mind your own business and you have been breaching Wikipedia:CIVIL to me for some time time now as well as following me all over Wiki I am sure you do not want to be seen as stirring things up. SageMab (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's getting to the point where we ask an admin to look at SageMab's behaviour. What do you think, as you are more experienced than I. All the best.Verbal chat 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ps: your achieve archive link at the top is red; Quelle horreur!

Thanks for pointing out the problem with the archive link.  As for SageMab, there we have an editor who seems to lack insight and seems to think that all of the problems he/she is experiencing are the fault of others.  I made a genuine offer of help on his talk page about explaining NPOV, which he doesn't understand, and was rebuked for it.  He's already made a reference to a cabal, and I think any Admin action would be seen as part of some cabal/plot. And of course he's engaging with a couple of Admins already. I almost wish he would make a formal complaint instead of allegations,etc, although from my experience complaints with no real basis are often just ignored instead of rejected. You have to admit he's enthusiastic -- who knows, he claims to be an academic (maybe in a field such as engineering which would explain his problems with references and reliable sources in such a different field), maybe if he was willing to be adopted by a mentor he might even become a good editor. At the moment though, he's only going to frustrate himself and others with his behaviour and his editing problems. Something to think about though. Doug Weller (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me going to Sage over your head, but I thought he might think we were conspiring if I discussed it further, and that as I had only recently become involved it might be taken as intended. I hope everyone can get along :) but then I have edited the constantly NPOV (apparently) homeopathy, so I know that's unlikely :) Verbal chat 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The deuce, I've been de-deuced! It's a fair cop, I'm a sucker for debunking fringecruft. I'll postpone my defence to such a time as when I'll be accused of something more grievous than dedication to upholding Wikipedia policy :op --dab (��) 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

You may be interested in the discussion going on here.  The DMOZ links in some articles have been reverted, while others have not.  Exploding Boy (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know whether to wait for other editors or act now. Doug Weller (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not going to revert.  I do have the feeling that certain users are perhaps... feeling proprietary over that particular guideline, though.   Exploding Boy (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Israelite conquest

The Israelite conquest of Canaan is no more disputed than the wandering.  Why didn't you change the subtitle to "Alleged wandering years and the alleged conquest of Canaan"?  Why not change section 9 to "Alleged origins of the alleged United Monarchy"?

The fact is, if you want to dispute the historicity of these things, you can do so in the article, giving sources.  But adding "alleged" in the title like that is what Wikipedia calls using "weasel words". -LisaLiel (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, 'alleged' is specifically not a weasel word if you have a source, in this case the Bible.--Doug Weller (talk) 09

19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Israelite" conquest of Canaan is just as disputed as the wandering.  Archaeologists have combed the Sinai and the Negev thoroughly searching for signs of 400,000+ people wandering around that area, including use of radar photographs taken from space such as the kind that revealed the Arabian peninsula to have once been a lush paradise with huge flowing rivers, and have found nothing.  The earliest mention of Israel, as "Ishri", show them to be a nomadic Canaanite tribe among the cities in Canaan (Canaan, by the way, the is name of the Phoenicians for themselves) in the north; between 1200 and 722 BCE, archaeological evidence demonstrates that the southern part of Palestine was virtually deserted, except for that area later known as Philistia.  Nor is there evidence of any "conquest"; for example, archaeological evidence demonstrates that at the time the Exodus and Conquest allegedly occured, Jericho was deserted. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 'just as'. I agree with you.  Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Temple in Jerusalem"

The article treats Biblical accounts as if they are hard fact and contains statements on other matters of questionable veracity. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I can see it says 'according to the Bible' several times, including the first three sentences. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddy request

Please if you could look at the Battle of Hyrba, and Battle of the Median Border, and see if they are well written, the Motives and Battle section CANNOT be changed they come directly from the book, but other sections could be reworded better, its mixed up in the other sections, varying direct words and made up words by me, I only do this to shorten something LONG FROM THE BOOK, but I keep the idea a certian book is trying to say without putting in my original research in it. So, if you could Mostly look at median border one not Hyrba, Hyrba was almost nominated as a GA article so JUst watchlist median border, I deeply appreciate and THANK YA!--Ariobarza (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ok, may take a couple of days or a bit more, real life gets in the way at times! Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Enlil

Okay, So! Under "origins" a recent editor placed a controversial theory about how the word "En" in "enlil" became various semetic deities. Controversial because actual links between a couple of the deities isn't directly supported by evidence.

However, this is irrelevant to the article; it is not a section for the Origins OF LATER SEMETIC DEITIES, it is a section on the Origin of the diety "Enlil", which appeared in Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian mythology. Why, exactly, a section for the origins of the subject of the article has been made into something completely different, I do not know. Why it's mentioned in the Enlil article at all? I don't know. Why are details about those deities are present- such as the bit on Jesus's sayings, necessary to the article? Should I add in several more paragraphs on how pickaxes were used because it's mentioned in the article.

The Enlil story was changed and details such as Ninlil's rape (rape being defined as "an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent" were changed to "slept with" completely distorting the truth of the story to seem more, perhaps, PG.

However, in the ETCSL database, the occurance was clearly rape:

"The king said to her, "I want to have sex with you!", but he could not make her let him. Enlil said to her, "I want to kiss you!", but he could not make her let him. "My vagina is small, it does not know pregnancy. My lips are young, they do not know kissing. If my mother learns of it, she will slap my hand! If my father learns of it, he will lay hands on me! But right now, no one will stop me from telling this to my girl friend!"

35-53. Enlil spoke to his minister Nuska: "Nuska, my minister!" "At your service! What do you wish?" "Master builder of the E-kur!" "At your service, my lord!" "Has anyone had intercourse with, has anyone kissed a maiden so beautiful, so radiant -- Ninlil, so beautiful, so radiant?" The minister brought his master across by boat, bringing him over with the rope of a small boat, bringing him over in a big boat. The lord, floating downstream to ...... -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- Father Enlil, floating downstream to ...... -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- he grasped hold of her whom he was seeking -- he was actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her! -- so as to lie with her on a small bank ....... He actually had intercourse with her, he actually kissed her. At this one intercourse, at this one kissing he poured the seed of Suen-Acimbabbar into her womb."

And the story is later distorted to cast Enlil's descent to the underworld as a choice, rather than a punishment by the Anunna gods. It completely fudges the meaning of the original document.

So if it's alright with you, I'll revert some of it in a few days. Thanks for your time!

NJMauthor (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for yours! I've reverted my revert. Doug Weller (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)