Talk:Aris Poulianos

Comments

Here's just a few of the unacceptable elements in the text version that was plagiarized/paraphrased from Poulianos' own vanity resume from the web:

• "and disproved the widely accepted theories...": POV
• "...widely accepted theories of German anthropology that classify the modern Greeks as a mixed Slavic group" - unsourced, probably factually incorrect. Who are those German anthropologists? Greeks as a Slavic group???!!?
• "...which have shed light on the origins ...": POV
• "...was elected Vice-President of the 8th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences..." - Vanity. Sounds as if it was some high office in a professional organization? Well, somebody let him organize a conference. Big deal.
• "He is also a member of the New York Academy of Sciences..." - Vanity. Sounds as if it was some high professional achievement? Anybody can become a member in the NYAS, it's just a club you pay a membership fee for. [1].
• "The first proof of native intelligent human presence in Europe came with the discovery ..." Unsourced paragraph that was spammed across multiple articles by a notorious anon POV-pusher. Basically derived from "grecoreport".
• Bibliography: We don't do extensive bibliographies of scholars like that anywhere on WP. At most, a few of the most prominent publications can be listed (monographs etc.) But these are all short articles, conference talks etc. Half of them are from Poulianos' own journal, "Anthropos" (self-published, not peer-reviewed, obviously a vanity outlet. More than half of its contents are written by the two Poulianos' themselves!) The article claims he wrote five books, but the list doesn't actually contain any of them as far as I've seen, except the PhD dissertation.

I'll keep reverting if anybody tries to reinstate these and other similar elements. And WTF has this to do with "anti-Greek bias" please???!!? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes you demand do not coincide with the changes that actually occurred on the article. You just went about and removed anything that you considered "vainglorious." Who cares if you consider certain statements in the article as "vainglorious." If Aris Poulianos was a member of the NYAS, then he was and there is nothing in this world that will change that fact. I don't care how easy it is to get into NYAS or any other organization. Aris Poulianos being a member of NYAS is a fact and you are just going to have to live with it. The same goes for everything else that Aris Poulianos accomplished. I will not stand by idly and watch anal-retentive users such as yourself remove information needlessly. I will make some revisions to the article, but I will not allow the Poulianos article to be reduced to a mere stub. Threatening to revert the article shows that you are very narrow-minded and dishonest. Your reasons for making certain changes may have been sound, but you took your position as "Grand Editor" too far. Do yourself a favor. Step down from your "divine throne" and take a vacation. Deucalionite 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Publication list

I'm removing at least:

• Newspaper articles,
• Letters to the editor,
• Less-than-one-page reports to conference proceedings
• The self-published stuff from "Anthropos".

No scholar with any amount of pride would dream of listing such stuff among his "major publications". Let's not make Poulianos a laughing-stock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Each scholar is different and what may be deemed as major in academia could be considered minor to the scholar. Yet, I am somewhat elated that you did not reduce Aris Poulianos to a useless stub again. Tell me, what changed your mind? I think that the facts pertaining to Poulianos' participation at NYAS and the 3rd International Congress of European Anthropology should remain. These are facts and your deeming them as vainglorious (even if they are) does not change the nature of these facts whatsoever. Again, the list of major works is fine, but the two facts you have removed should be put back into the article. Over and out. Deucalionite 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he joined the NYAS is about as important as if he had joined the local bowling club. It says nothing about the quality of his work or his standing in international scholarship. You can either present this fact as a worthless piece of trivia. But no reader would want to read such trivia. Or you can present it in such a way as to insinuate that it is some noteworthy professional achievement. In that moment, it becomes a full-blown lie. - Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am so happy that you are giving me "options". Either I present these facts as "worthless pieces of trivia" or present them as "lies." How nice. How about we make a compromise and get this over with? You allow for the statement of the 3rd International Congress of European Anthropology to remain in the article in exchange for keeping the "local bowling club" off of the article. If I were you, I would not reject this opportunity to settle this dispute once and for all. If you reject this offer, then the arguing will not stop. Unless, of course, you want to continue arguing. Your call and make it good. Over and out. Deucalionite 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "3rd European Congress of Anthropology", whatever it was, wasn't a scholarly conference of any notable reputation. There are exactly zero references to this conference on the web outside Poulianos' own sphere (i.e. his aee.gr website and this Wikipedia article ([2]). Moreover, the proceedings of the "congress" were published in Poulianos' non-peer-reviewed self-published "journal", Anthropos. Apparently this was just around the time when he became a pariah in the scholarly community, and ever since then he has never published anything in any reputable outlet, did you notice? Again, to present this insinuating that it was a professional achievement would be little more than a lie. Therefore it must go. I'm not "giving you options", and I'm not asking any. I'm just trying to explain why it is bad to base Wikipedia articles on vanity web biographies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, we could of course state it in the context of his becoming a pariah: In 1982, he organized the 3rd European Congress of Anthropology, which however was boycotted by most other scholars because with his extraordinary claims and his research methods Poulianos had become isolated within the discipline. Something like that. That can be sourced even to his own website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Put the sentence in if you want. Just as long as it is honest. Moreover, if you are going to put in the sentence the way the you have it, the least you could do is specify which scholars boycotted the 3rd European Congress of Anthropology. Don't just say "most scholars", because anyone can say that to make some useless point in an argument and get away with it.

Try this: In 1982, Poulianos organized the 3rd European Congress of Anthropology, which was boycotted by scholars such as (place scholars here). These scholars isolated Poulianos because they saw both his claims and research methods as extraordinary. I think the way I wrote it sounds a bit more balanced. Of course, if you don't like it, we could just remove the sentence entirely and forget about it. Your call and make it good. Over and out. Deucalionite 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'll see if I can get some reliable info on what happened there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. Let's hope your search is successful. However, if you don't find anything reliable, then spare yourself the agony and just forget about the sentence. Over and out. Deucalionite 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Indoeuropean Theory

In the article it is written that:

Poulianos has claimed that this discovery renders the Indo-European theory obsolete.

and there is a link to a disambiguation page. Which Indo-European Theory are we referring to? Indeed which theory was he referring to? If we cannot decide, then maybe a sentence pointing out that he himself is confused as to the tenets of the theory that he claims his find to have rendered obsolete might be in order. --5telios 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Excessive quotes in footnotes

Please see WP:NFC, section "unacceptable use". That text is copyrighted, we can only ever use very short extracts of such texts for supporting specific claims. Don't worry about verifiability, the source will remain verifiable even in the event that it should ever go offline, because it has been published by a reputable news agency; people could still always look it up in their print archives. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You make some really good points. Guess I got a bit carried away when I implemented "excessively long copyrighted excerpts" into the article. However, would it be alright if we just kept, like you said, a "short extract"? I mean, wouldn't a "reduced quotation" technically resolve the problem associated with citing excessively long copyrighted data? Deucalionite (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, such quotations would have to be very very short. And why do it anyway? It's not something that's generally encouraged. Especially since the source isn't even in English and the quotes will be just as unreadable for the average reader as the full original. You wouldn't do it in an academic publication either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right Future. Wait, what about translations of "copyrighted extracts"? If you think about it, the copyrighted material is only in Greek. So, if someone were to translate just a chunk of the article, would it be alright to include it in the references section? I'm just asking. Deucalionite (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, a translated text is still under the same copyright as the original, being a "derived work". Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries my friend. You've made your point and I appreciate your help. By the way, any luck on that research you conducted regarding Poulianos's background? Just curious. Deucalionite (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Archanthropus

Whatever it was, it seems to be important in clarifying that evolutionary step from more primitive Homo species to the Homo sapiens crown group (due to the findings' claimed ages and controversial grouping among many Homo species), but the greek proto-humans are not mentioned on any other wiki article beside this one...--94.69.128.204 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this guy even taken seriously?

I heard and read that this guy is widely known as pariah in the scholastic world and currently no other serious scientist has taken his discoveries for real. It didn't even came somewhere in the news. Unfortunately - which does confirm this - only sources can be found that he and/or his organisation was working on (Eg the pages "aee.gr" and "www.travel-to-halkidiki.com"; or the "Anthropos"-Magazin). What is the current state of his work and actualy how seriously is it taken today? --84.63.214.171 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/greek-archaeologist-government-suppressing-truth-destroying-evidence-europeans-evolved-separately - Of course some others have pushed the ideas even further, —PaleoNeonate – 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aris Poulianos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050204084412/http://aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html to http://www.aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)