Talk:Richard L. Thompson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NPOV

I wish to protest in the strongest way the wholesale whitewashing of this article by a Thompson partisan. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about yourself? Apparently, vehemently disliking a topic, or a person, or an issue - that is balanced. I like the guy - I'm being honest and up front. You know exactly where I am coming in from - no punches pulled.

That doesn't preclude I don't appreciate the merits of balanced scholarship, or reporting - or whatever it is we claim to be doing here. That what I aiming for, and perhaps that is something you fear? Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeframes of human existence

I would note that even Cremo's own website gives support for the claim that he asserted a heavily-lengthened timeframe of human existence in Forbidden Archeology:

With Dr. Richard L. Thompson, a founding member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, I began a series of books aimed at both scholarly and popular audiences. The first to be published was Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race. This book shows that archaeologists and anthropologists, over the past one hundred and fifty years, have accumulated vast amounts of evidence showing that humans like ourselves have existed on this planet for tens of millions of years.[1]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Cremo's is stating the work offers 900 pages of anomalous evidence that would appear to geologically date that far back. 900 pages is a "vast amount". Yes, they are arguing the possibility that the time frame for what we consider modern human life on earth stretches far beyond contemporary norms.

Whatever the case, a large percentage of these older reports did not come from modern "archeologists and anthropologists" as held to the contemporary standards - for one thing, they were not yet available. While many reports came from respectable professionals, they were not trained scientists by modern standards. To whatever degree this evidence is relevant it is difficult to reconcile within a contemporary scientific framework, for whatever reason. Sdmuni108 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Many of the claims appear to rely on unreliable references and primary sources. Some parts of this article are only present by being given undue weight. (I was called to the article by the RFC system) IRWolfie- (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Two sentence review

I removed the material cited to a short, superficial, two-sentence review[2] of Alien Identities, which simply said:

"Alien Identities is a mind stretcher that goes as far as the evidence can allow for UFO-type phenomena in ancient India." Fascinating and so well documented by Vedic sources that that glow just beyond the clouds will never look the same.

If anybody thinks it is worthy of reinclusion, they can make an argument as to why this material is prominent, or compliant with the requirements of WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to state - "Hinduism Today found the work 'well documented' and only 'goes as far as the evidence can allow.'" I can recall putting that in. Hmm... pray tell what happened?

The rest of the sentence sounded like poetic punning. I have this hunch you took it as an example of bad mathematics. Hmmm...

Gosh, Hinduism Today does little review of Thompson - irrelevant and deleted. Graville Henry, a respected philospher and matehmatician, does 4 pages worth in a sophisticated journal - irrelevant and deleted. Nobel Prize winners who like Thompson's work and say so in print - irrelevant and deleted. One of the biggest evolutionists of the past century writes Thompson's paper is the best at his conference - irrelevant and deleted. NASA funded Thompson & Goels research papers - irrelevant and deleted.

Meanwhile, some nameless perfunctory says he/she thinks FA claims humans are billions of years old in a one paragraph bio sketch of Cremo (not Thompson) - now that is real science. No matter no mention of any such thing in the introduction or conclusion where one finds the works thesis argument and objectives.

Sounds like the perfunctory would fit right in with some of our pundits, here. Well, then, he must be "right."

Most amazing is the citation link does not even work. I had to google it up independently. But since its the "right" thing to think - no matter. Meanwhile, a Los Alamos or NASA website link that works with reference to Thompson - its bogus.

Odd. We've gone down a regular rabbit hole with this thread. Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is "odd" is that you included more information on Hinduism Today's superficial two-liner than you did on Henry's "4 pages worth in a sophisticated journal". My objection to your treatment of Henry's work was that I was given either a cherry-picked (and very uninformative) quote or a bald, superficial 'I liked it' -- neither of which adds anything to the article. A "sophisticated" review involves analysis in depth -- and you have completely failed to articulate a summary of Henry's review that demonstrates it. It does not matter how sophisticated it was -- if you summarise it as simply 'I liked it' -- it might as well be no more than 'Hinduism Today's superficial two-liner'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What is odd is well - the typing manifest by one particular name that begins with the letter after g, as in God. Must think he's the son of God, eh?

btw - you never mentioned how you felt Henry's early lengthy quotation were cherry picked, with reference to the rest of the article. Or most recent ones either. It sounds like anything you don't want to hear is cherry picked - you know, anything positive about dear ol' RLT

I put in maybe 10 words from Hinduism Today - by comparison, I've had multiple sentences of Henry deleted. Either way, its all deleted, the pattern being they were all positive assessments.

How is anything in the rest of the article pass for "analysis in depth". How does anything on Wikipedia pass for that? Its a quick reference tool.

Perhaps you you think anything you like to hear must be deep. Nah, couldn't be!

here's more interesting material for our Kangaroo Courtiers - its all posted in fun, for your enjoyment only!

Folks in Russia seem to love our favorite obsession (loathing is the flip side of love, they say). You'll have to run the links thru google translate.

Russian RLT wikipedia - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Томпсон,_Ричард

Russian academic conference paper on RLT - http://www.elcom.ru/~human/2008bg/25timoschuk.html

images of Noble Prize Wigner and Josephson's letter's to Thompson - http://www.dandavats.com/?p=9735

Govardhan Hill Publishing's web page that had those quotations posted since 1995 -

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/mnmsrevs.html

but much better to look at is some nameless dude behind a desk who quotation about a book it sounds like he never read - and who's link doesn't work. Billions upon billions is the argument, eh - he must have thought he was reading a McDonald's menu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vacuous and uninformative summaries of Henry's review

appreciating Thompson writing "as a scientist about science with a clarity, accuracy, and objectivity."

Basically summarises Henry as saying 'I liked it'. It provides no analysis or explanation of the claims contained in the book, so is basically useless to the reader. Further, as Henry is not himself a scientist, his evaluation that Thompson was writing "as a scientist" is not particularly solid. Unless and until you can bring yourself to actually summarise how Henry described the meat of Thompson's book, rather than just how he praised it, I will simply delete this {{fancruft}}. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought it should be useful as a assessment of RLT's skill level, and of RLT's style/mood of approach toward making his argument. That Henry claims Thompson knows the science and sympathetically expresses himself as one, is no small thing when considering the kind of work one usually expects out of most so-called "creationists" camp - an easy charge to make with RLT as well.

I'll be the first to admit - I'm no mathematician and Mech is a little technical for me, even though RLT claiming he wrote it for a general audience. I can go back later and see if I can cull something in addition, or something more substantial from Henry's analysis.

Henry is both a mathematician, plus a philosopher - that's his academic specialty. He seems in a uniquely qualified position to analyze the work's relative merit. Sdmuni108 (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that I can find no evidence that Henry ever came closer to real science than writing on 'Religion and Science' -- there is therefore no basis for concluding that Henry himself "knows the science" sufficiently to give a reasonable assessment of Thompson's knowledge of the science involved. Further, it is very common for creationists to find the occasional religiously-orientated philosopher/mathematicians sympathetic to their cause -- so this in no way distinguishes Thompson from his fellow creationists. Finally, I have seen nothing to indicate that Henry is an information theorist, and therefore would question whether he has any particular competence to evaluate Thompson's information theoretical claims (even assuming that you ever got around to going beyond superficialities of the review). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What I have on Henry is that he held a position for thirty years as mathematician and philosopher of science at a prestigious liberal arts college. At the minimum, he appears competent to write a thorough 4 page review of a book for a prestigious peer reviewed religion and science journal.

Have you found evidence Henry promoted creationism? On he other hand, I have heard that even a tinge of sympathetic religious mindedness is considered a scourge to the ideological advocates of scientism - a dogmatic religious belief in metaphysical naturalism.

Hopefully, not everyone will be condemned as a witch unless they prove otherwise by drowning. Apparently, back in the day, prosecutors charged that only "real" witches could float.

The main issue at hand at the moment is not about truth claims whether Thompson and/or Henry are right. Rather, it is about notability - your stated obsession. 174.131.119.108 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ISKON Obituary

ISKCON Scientist Sadaputa Dasa Passes Away DOES NOT state or support that "Later, [Thompson] conducted research in quantum physics and mathematical biology at the State University of New York at Binghamton, and Cambridge University in the United Kingdom." Therefore after repeated removal of tags pointing the fact that this material requires a source, I have removed the material. Per WP:BURDEN DO NOT resotre this material without citing a reliable source supporting this material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if it did I don't think it's a reliable source for this information. A reference should be available from Cambridge etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The dissertation was published. The Iskcon obituary is rather evidence the guy died. Not clear why it was removed as a reference for that sentence. As for RLT at Cambridge - it looks like a post doc working under Josephson during the 80s. For what it is worth, I currently have primary documents. Sdmuni108 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

mathematican- statistics and propability

ISKCON is not a reliable source for his specialization. Please provide a reputable source for this information. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it is not WP:RS for his later specialisation, but I think it can count as a permissible WP:ABOUTSELF source for the university & topic of his PhD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I found something we can use from the dissertation - will give it a go later and see what you think. Sdmuni108 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the dissertation topic jibe with the description? The "probability theory and statistical mechanic" appears to be how RLT described himself in his books.

added some info & links to bio based on info in published dissertation.

bonus question: how can FA be labeled as pseudoscience, when it is not science, per se? Its historical research coupled with controversial historical analyses. The authors' didn't do any actual archeology and the like. I don't mean to endorse the controversies surrounding about the work in pushing this, but it keeps grabbing at me. So many charges about pseudoscience, but its historical research and analysis. Sdmuni108 (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonus WP:TROUT -- get a bloody clue! Archaeology is science. Making scientifically-ludicrous claims about it is therefore pseudoscience. It has been explicitly described as such, and the general scientific assessment of FA is that it is WP:Complete bollocks. Your continued attempts to WP:WEASEL out of this blatantly obvious point has reduced your credibility to negligible levels. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be described as Pseudoscience and Pseudohistory as well, for clarity? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no original scientific research presented in the work. At one point in Leppers review (Hidden History, Hidden Agenda), he describes the "work is frustrating because it mixes together a genuine contribution to our understanding of the history of archaeology and paleoanthropology with a bewildering mass of absurd claims and an audaciously distorted review of the current state of paleoanthropology."

I don't think "frustrating" meets a pseudohistorical analysis. If pseudo is utilized, perhaps something along the lines, "the work has been vehemently criticized for promoting a pseudo-paleoanthropological analysis." Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FA history

I wanted to throw this out there as a point for consideration - for whatever it may be worth.

RLT hasn't been involved with the Forbidden Archeology project since some time in 1995 when Cremo took over the project and turned it into a career. RLT was invited to appear on the 1996 Mysteries Origins NBC special with Heston - who could pass up face-time on prime time with America's Hollywood Moses?

The FA promotion over the last 16 years is a product of Cremo's approach to the subject. I suspect the folks who originally started this site identify with that initiative. Sdmuni108 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Which in no way contradicts the fact that it is this type of work that Thompson is most frequently, and most detailedly, reported in third-party sources for. And thus it is this that Wikipedia is required to concentrate upon, per WP:DUE. If Thompson didn't "pass up" on "Hollywood Moses" why should Wikipedia? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm seeing little that suggests that the following is a balanced summary of third-party views of the book:

The nine hundred page work catalogued historical reports over the last two hundred years suggesting a human antiquity far exceeding contemporary norms

For "catalogued" I would suggest that 'cherry-picked', for "historical reports over the last two hundred years" I would suggest 'outdated and often poorly documented', for "suggesting" I would suggest 'misrepresented to suggest'. I have seen nothing to suggest that third-party sources actually accept that their 'evidence' supports their conclusion.

Their methods are borrowed from fundamentalist Christian creationists (whom they assiduously avoid citing). They catalog odd "facts" which appear to conflict with the modern scientific understanding of human evolution and they take statements from the work of conventional scholars and cite them out of context to support some bizarre assertion which the original author would almost certainly not have advocated. Cremo and Thompson regard their collection of dubious facts as "anomalies" that the current paradigm of paleoanthropology cannot explain.

— Bradley T. Lepper[3]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no argument that FA remains the most notable topic.

The work is a catalog of anomalous evidence, and not a comprehensive catalog of ALL the evidence.

If FA were presented as a comprehensive, definitive catalog of everything, I would agree with you. But it does not, nor does it present itself as such. Sdmuni108 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

btw - found Nanda's reference on pg 120 about the beginning of the universe, but it failed to a mention said evidence was to be found on Earth. Vaisnava metaphysics does NOT focus on the Earth or our familiar experience with its "life", particularly with regards to an account of cosmic origins - its not Old Testament. For example, Nanda refers to one comsic "Lord Brahma." While as a construct an entity described as human-like in general form, hardly human in terms of biology as we know it. From a Vaisnava perspective, this is hardly something expected to show up in an earthly geological record.

Whatever the case, obviously both modern science and the book only have access to either accepted or anomalous empirical evidence, here on earth. Thus its a voluminous catalog of anomalous reports of varying degrees of credibility. Best to tone down the hyper sensational verbiage.

While Lepper offers his definition for anomalous, here is what Mirriam Webster has to say:

Webster's online - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anomalous

Definition of ANOMALOUS:

1 : inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected : irregular, unusual

2a : of uncertain nature or classification

2b : marked by incongruity or contradiction

Sdmuni108 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

— WP:UNDUE

It is clear from the generally scathing eviscerations of this work that Lepper is speaking for the majority view here. That Cremo and Thompson wish to consider their "dubious facts" to be genuine "anomolies" and the mere "appearance of conflict" to in some way overturn a scientific consensus based upon a far larger body, of often far better preserved and documented evidence, does not mean that Wikipedia should credulously accept that perspective. I would suggest that taking what would be (from the "two hundred years") often very old and poorly-documented examples out of their historic context to be more than mere 'cataloging', and would quote how a prominent scientist described an early example of this genre (that of George McCready Price):

based on scattering mistakes, omissions, and exceptions against general truths that anybody familiar with the facts in a general way can not possibly dispute.

— David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University

I have seen nothing to date to suggest that FA is not based upon a similar "scattering", and a similar wilful ignorance of the main body of evidence.

Further I would point out that the title of this work is "Forbidden Archaeology", and archaeology is a science not theology. Thus your claims about "Vaisnava metaphysics" are irrelevant. I would further point out that archaeology is EXCLUSIVELYbased upon evidence "found on Earth", and if your beloved cranks did not want to address the full body of that evidence, and be judged in context of that evidence, then they ruddy well should have picked a different topic to write about. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lepper's view about the work is well taken. Lepper review also (anomalously?) mentioned that FA contributes to a "genuine contribution to our understanding of the history of archaeology and paleoanthropology". Hence my claim this work is a catalog of historical reports, though I would add reports that all fit outside contemporary norms - which is the claim of the book as well. It is not a comprehensive work of all the historical evidence. I don't see a claim in the book for that either.

I am working with the Webster definition for the word anomalous. The title - obviously chosen for provocativeness - does not refer to original scientific research. It is a historical catalog of anomalous reports of varying degrees of credibility - all well referenced for review by other historians of science. If anything, it is a history of science work, as Lepper points out.

(Hrafn - I suggest though art the "crank"y reactionary here! You seem to be projecting value to this work which it doth not possess. FA does not meet contemporary scientific standards for establishing a dominant scientific paradigm. It is a historical compendium with a provocative argument.) Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Books and Papers

Too many books and papers are included. This seems unnecessary. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but given that (i) we've already been through this once, (ii) the number is down from ludicrously excessive to simply excessive, & (iii) the far more fatal problem of a biography section which, even when exclusively cited to primary sources, still can't manage to verify most of the contents, I for one aren't going to worry too much about it at this stage. On the other hand, if you want to take a chainsaw to it, I'll happily hold your coat for you while you do so (metaphorically speaking). :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie that the papers could be slimmed down further. I initially put way too many up due to inexperience with the wiki forum. Some of the books are reprints in other languages meant to suggest a wide audience for the works in response to criticism the books were not broadly distributed. Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I just looked at the edited bibliography, and ALL the papers with reference to evolution and biology have been removed. Most notably, his paper at the John Maynard Smith led conference, that contains Smith's very favorable comments regarding Thompsons' work in the peer reviewed conference proceedings. Very curious.

In the book section, Thompson's God & Science where he articulates in his introduction his personal philosophy suggesting the complexity thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science - also removed, perhaps in the service of pidgeon holing Thompson as "creationist".

That pattern suggests something other then objective editing. What is the point behind removing ALL evidence of his background in evolution or biology? It is a common argument by advocates for scientism that their critics have no scientific background in Darwinian theory.

Without mention in the article that Thompson worked for NASA - why the near exclusive emphasis on his remote sensing work? What does that have to do with FA, rather it is of value with reference to his other works on cosmology and astronomy.

I plan to reinstate the old biblio so to invite a mature editing of his works and papers.

"Merger proposals aside" -- then DON'T ruddy well put it in the merger section!

Merger proposals aside, concerning the new biographical data, how does the Spitzer citation appear to be undocumented? Thompson acknowledges in this peer reviewed work as having worked under the {guidance} of Spitzer and Kesten - they guided his doctoral work. The American Mathematical Society editors published it. Unfortunately, once again this new barrage of edits sounds driven by an ideological utilization of Wiki legalese. I will be first to agree Hrafn is extremely knowledgeable about Wiki bureaucracy. Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Thompson DOES NOT acknowledge "in this peer reviewed work as having worked under the direction of Spitzer and Kesten" -- he acknowledges that Spitzer helped him choose the topic, and that Kesten helped review the final thesis -- neither of which necessarily means that they 'directed' the research that went in between. You are stating an inference not contained in the source -- therefore you are performing impermissible WP:SYNTHESIS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Guidance is a better word, and I believe the one used in my original text. He took their guidance, for certain, also suggesting he took their direction for developing his dissertation. Semantics, perhaps?

One generally does not acknowledge friendly scholars in ones dissertation to the exclusion of ones committee members, especially a supervising member. Whatever the case, these prominent mathematicians offered significant guidance and direction to a paper acknowledged for its excellence and originality by the prestigious American Mathematical Society.

Once again, another challenge launched with bureaucratic legalese in the service of a blatant agenda.

Why has all of Thompson's work, especially his noted work in the field of evolutionary biology, been deleted from his papers and professional works section? sdmuni108 174.131.119.108 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Mere "guidance" would appear insufficient for noteworthiness.
2. Wikipedia "generally does not acknowledge" doctoral supervisors unless a third-party source has suggested that their influence was noteworthy. That's why we rely principally on secondary sources not primary.
3. No evidence has been provided that Thompson has performed any legitimate work in the field of evolutionary biology -- a field that he would appear to be grossly unqualified for.
4. "Once again," assertions (and abuse) offered with zero substantiation, and a BLATANTLY HAGIOGRAPHICAL agenda.

nonetheless, acknowledged "guidance" in print by very prominent mathematicians is a historical fact - he was guided in his dissertation by highly skilled scientists on a work duly noted for its high level of originality and relevance. Its an undisputable historical factoid.

Other then that, there is little disagreement that Thompson's major wiki relevance is based on the FA controversies, which are featured prominently at the top of the article.

Is this a technicality concerning the heading "biography"? If FA is featured, then additional biographical information is relevant. The historical fact that Thompson was professionally acknowledged as a mathematician, as well as for his work in artificial intelligence and evolutionary biology among a plethora of scientific papers, is noteworthy in context of the FA paleoanthropology controversy. This other information does not endorse FA, rather it offers context.

Without it, Thompson does in fact sound like a "Vedic Creationists" which is an unbalanced portrayal of the man.

Its not my personal interest here to promote the FA project or Vedic Creationism, or whatever. I am looking for a balanced portrayal of the man. sdmuni108 174.131.78.218 (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

1. ROFLMAO! To claim that Thompson has ever been a "very prominent mathematician" is ludicrous hyperbole -- and as always, completely unsubstantiated. To claim that he was such fresh out of the PhD program is even more ludicrous.
2. You are incorrect, if Thompson is only prominent for FA/related Vedic creationism, and lacks third-party biographical information, then WP:BLP1E applies, and it is reasonable to cover this in that article or section.
3. There is no "FA paleoanthropology controversy" as FA has been uncontroversially debunked, consigned to the scrapheap, and long since forgotten.
4. There is no evidence whatsoever that he did any legitimate work on evolutionary biology, and the evidence for the claim that he did work in the field of AI would appear tenuous -- and so would require WP:SECONDARY confirmation to back it up. Regardless, there is no evidence whatsoever that he would meet WP:ACADEMIC for any of his legitimate work.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Prime notability continues to involve Forbidden Archeology (FA) - no disagreement among us. That work is notably embroiled in creation/development controversies debated in the public arena.

By comparison, other information in the wiki article is short, informative, and easily referenced - useful as contextual bio info.

While RLT was not a paleoanthropologist, he did legitimate professional work in other areas published in peer reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. Of particular interest could be published commentary by the prominent British evolutionary theorist, J. Maynard Smith, in his favorable review of Thompson's contribution to the "Dynamics of Evolution" conference proceedings (1990, ISBN 0719026709, 434-35.)

Meanwhile, especially Thompson's last work (2004) features his personal views in the "Introduction", suggesting a deep affinity toward J.H. Brooke's influential "complexity thesis" on the relationship between science and religion. Sdmuni108 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

- - -

FYI - specifically concerning your issue about "Artificial Life" work (not AI): That likely refers to Langton's edited volume of the Los Alamos ALife '87 conference proceedings (1989, ISBN 0201093464). The contributors to the volume are posted online on the University of Trier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Trier) computer science bibliography website (http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/alife/alife1987.html) maintained by Dr. Michael Ley (http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/addr.html). In addition, the volume is currently for sale on EBay, where the seller also lists the volume's essays: (http://www.ebay.co.uk/ctg/Artificial-Life-Proceedings-Interdisciplinary-Workshop-Synthesis-and-Simulation-Living-Systems-/91958345#). Of general interest, Richard Dawkins presented at this conference.

Organizational constraints on the dynamics of evolution seems to have had little impact as a whole (it's very infrequently cited), and Goel & Thompson's contributions to it (theirs being only a couple out of dozens of papers presented), none at all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point. Rather, you commented you had doubts Thompson did work in evolutionary theory. In response, this paper is competent scientific work favorably reviewed by a prominent leader in the field, J. Maynard Smith. It is work Smith both enthusiastically commented upon in print and featured in a volume of conference proceedings. Smith both led the conference and co-edited the peer reviewed conference proceedings. The paper is thus mentioned in Thompson's bibliography.

I'm looking at a plethora of wiki biographies, and none of them feature Nobel prize winning achievements with the application of every comma. As a result, I'm suggesting perhaps you have an ideological ax to grind that is hid behind a familiarity with wiki policy, capriciously applied. Sdmuni108 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Fringe views require extra levels of verification. Many biographies tend to be not draw much attention so may be in need of improvement, I wouldn't use them as the bar to judge this article by. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Debates involving the work are being reported on, and not endorsed. From that perspective, there is an ax grind going on.

3rd party references #1 - Thompson, religion & science

The following quotations are from: Mikael Rothstein, Belief Transformations: Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Science and Religion in Transcendental Meditation (TM) and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), (Oxford: Aarphus University Press, 1996). These are favorable comments.

Rothstein is Associate Professor at the Department of History of Religions at the Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies at the University of Copenhagen. He has a short Danish wiki bio.

His 1996 work reports that Sadaputa dasa (Richard Thompson) is a "dominating figure" and "leading person" in ISKCON exploring the relationship between science and religion, and "the leading figure" researching ancient Vedic cosmography and astronomy. Within an extended discussion, Rothstein specifically devotes eight pages to Thompson's ancient cosmology work.

According to Rothstein:

"ISKCON's dominating figure in science, Sadaputa dasa, write about 'Science: The Vedic View' in nearly every issue of ISKCON's bimonthly Back to Godhead Magazine. . . . In discussing ISKCON's relationship to science these articles are excellent starting points, and as Sadaputa dasa is the leading person in this field of work in ISKCON, it is necessary to focus attention on his contributions" (126).

"The judgement of ordinary scientists is well known to Sadaputa dasa" (131).

"The most striking examples of the development and use of higher dimensional science is the work of Sadaputa dasa (Richard L. Thompson), the leading figure in ISKCON's work in this respect. Holding a Ph.D. in mathematics, Sadputa dasa has written extensively on scientific subjects from [that] perspective . . . . In Sadaputa dasa's book {Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy] the higher dimentional level of science is, among other things, exemplified through the quantum theory of physicist Niels Bohr" (122)

"In order to appraise Sadaputa dasa's scientific competence, I have shown a substantial part of his production to a leading physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen. The scholarly judgement was in favour of Sadaputa dasa. His work was considered competent, although the physicist emphasized that he himself did not share the conclusions. As a matter of fact scholars at the Niels Bohr Institute were willing to meet with Sadaputa dasa for scholarly purposes." (209, fn11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.115.61 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

1. How does "ISKCON's relationship to science" & "Vedic creationism" differ? The two would appear heavily entwined. Does this commentary give any substantive indication that he has notability beyond the latter?
2. I would have a lot more confidence in Thompson's work being submitted to proper peer review, rather than simply being submitted for assessment by a single anonymous physicist. This is particularly true as many of Thompson's wilder claims go well beyond physics (e.g. into archaeology).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

- While Vedic creationism is part of the discussion, works like "Vedic Cosmography" or "Mysteries of the Sacred Universe" are hardly about creation/development. They are laden with astronomy, mathematics, physics, and ancient texts. "Creation" debates tend to focus on our beloved Mr. Darwin's theory.

- Of course peer review is the gold standard - for science, or any academic work. The physicist the author interviewed simply claimed Thompson was a competent physicist (according to the author), and NOT that he felt Thompson was right. Apparently the scholars at Niels Bohr Institute found Thompson's work intriguing on a professional level - that's it.

- As for those scientific papers - most (not all) were in peer reviewed journals. They show Thompson understood how to do competent, if not excellent science - when he chose to do professional science. His commentaries - works like Mechanistic, Vedic Cosmology, FA, Sacred Universe, and the like - they are not science per se, but commentaries on science from *one* particular Gaudiya Vaisnava perspective, i.e. Thompson's. THEY DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING in and of themselves, they are simply learned theological analyses from the perspective of a competent scientist/mathematician. (Meanwhile, FA was more a historical analysis of a particular genre of evidence, ad nauseam, and not actual science.)

- That is EXACTLY what Henry called "Mechanistic" in the very first line of his review. There he described Thompson "has written a clear apology for the religious philosophy of the Hare Krishna movement from the perspective of a scientist and mathematician" (1984 Zygon 19 p377). There is no tomfoolery in that review. It is what it is, and I would agree with Henry's assessment - that is what it is.

- Hrafn - what follows is a personal, philosophical comment. You and some of your allies seem to be looking for a kind of certainty through science that doesn't exist via empiricism (or perhaps any form of human perception.) If true, both yourself and actual creationists (and Iskcon has its share) are misguided on that count. Natural science is forever an opened ended inquiry. Metaphyics - whether real or imagined - is ALL beyond natural science, by definition. Declaring chance as the ultimate cause is also a metaphysical statement beyond empirical confirmation. Such stuff is all "religion" in the popular sense of the word. Actual natural science is not religion; rather, it is a method of inquiry. On that count, Thompson's theological commentaries in light of science are NOT peer reviewable science - I agree. But both yourself et al, as well as the creationists, may not be with me on that.

- Obviously you are a very bright guy. But I think you are missing it on this point, and its an important one (though not a technical one.) Sdmuni108 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Is А. С. Тимощук (2008). "Р. Томпсон – нестатистический махатма (1947 – 2008)". In А. С. Тимощук (ed.). Махабхарата, Бхагават-гита и неклассическая рациональность: материалы III Международной научно-теоретической конференции (in Russian). Владимир: Издательство Владимирского государственного университета. p. 141-144. ISBN 9785893689181. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help) a reliable (and/or third-party) source?

One reason I question its reliability, is that it is not (at least via its ISBN) listed on WorldCat. A reason why I question its reliability and its independence is that I notice Michael Cremo listed in its table of contents. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Bernath, another presenter, also turns out to be a Cremo/Thompson associate (and a researcher on FA). Would it be unreasonable of me to suspect that this (generically-name) 'International Scientific Conference' was in fact somewhat of an ISKCON-fest? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is as reliable source as it can be. The book was published by Vladimir State University. The editor of the book and the author of the chapter in question is D.Sc. and a professor at this university. The chapter in question is a paper he presented at 'International Scientific Conference'. The theme of the conference was Hinduism and science, that's why Michael Cremo was invited to speak there.Gaura79 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) If the book has been published, then why isn't it listed on WorldCat? (ii) This 'International Scientific Conference' appears to be more of an 'ISKCON Pseudoscience Fest'. (iii) What exactly is the editor/author's field of expertise (I can find no publications by this author listed in Google Scholar)? (iv) I can see why Cremo would fit the "Hinduism" part, but science? I don't think so. Did the conference include any legitimate Hindu scientists? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) Maybe because it's in Russian? There're many Russian language publications that are not listed there. (ii) The Conference was not organized by ISKCON. It was organized by a major Russian university. I don't see how participation of an ISKCON member Michael Cremo makes it an 'ISKCON Pseudoscience Fest' and why proceedings of an 'ISKCON Pseudoscience Fest' would be published by a university press. (iii) The author has a Ph.D in Philosopy from Institute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of Sciences. His dissertation was on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. He also has a higher, D.Sc. degree in Philosopy from a Russian university. He's a professor of philosophy and religious studies. His bio is available here. (iv) Cremo would fit as a representative of a Hindu view. Gaura79 (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) Two ISKCON members (Bernath, remember?). (ii) I'm able to find comparatively little information on Vladimir State University, which makes me more than a little suspicious. (iii) So his main area of interest just happens to overlap with International Society for Krishna Consciousness -- why am I not surprised. You should not be surprised to run into a high degree of skepticism if you dump a Russian titled & texted source, with an apparently-non-functional ISBN from an institution that doesn't even have its own article, into an article as controversial as this. At this stage I'm willing to accept this source as reliable for the basic biographical material cited -- but please do not remove any tags from other sources that still remain in the 'Biography' section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(i) I don't know if he's an ISKCON member. (ii) There's an article about this university in Russian Wikipedia. Please see. Also, if you check Russian wiki you'll find out that it doesn't have articles about many of the leading American universities. (iii) "So his main area of interest just happens to overlap with International Society for Krishna Consciousness" - yes, he is a specialist in the field. Nevertheless, I only intend to use this source for "the basic biographical material". Also note, that I removed not only tags, but also the unreliable sources. So there's no more need for tags.Gaura79 (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When there is a disagreement it is not proper to force your changes through without consensus and then accuse others of vandalism. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that we use this source only for the the basic biographical material.Gaura79 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Where was this consensus reached? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Right here, in this discussion.Gaura79 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think it is not a reliable source for this information for the reasons given above. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're being too strict. For basic bio info even the ISKCON sources could be considered reliable. I don't understand why you think this particular sourse is not reliable. Could you please indicate which reasons from mentioned above makes you think this source is not reliable? Gaura79 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie-. Also, there isn't consensus on this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that this discussion should be happening here. It really should be happening at AfD page of the article. It is perfectly fine to have one source being religious, yet independent of the author, it has been used before. There is a suspicion of partisan sources, yet I would accept that this particular source is not dependent on the author. (User) Mb (Talk) 22:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

More WP:Complete bollocks on Forbidden Archeology

An addition to the article (from 174.131.115.61, who is I presume Sdmuni108), would have us believe:

...through a nine hundred page catalog of historical findings over the last two centuries which would appear to support a Vedic creationist hypothesis that human beings in a modern form could have existed on Earth far deeper into antiquity.

I would suggest that this is WP:Complete bollocks, and that rather the WP:SECONDARY sources demonstrate that this work is a dishonest cherry-picking of antiquated, poor quality and inaccurate documentation of artifacts that no longer exist in order to fabricate a finding unsubstantiated with solid facts. I would suggest that this demonstrates that neither Thompson, nor his partisans on this article -- who are continually attempting to whitewash his charlatanry, have any credibility to speak of. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "it would appear to support" suggests a questionable argument. Other possible phrases could be: "attempts to support" and so on. The paragraph from which the posted phrase above was taken was clear about (1) all such arguments are not accepted as the dominant explanatory paradigm within the scientific disciplines in question and (2) critics have vehemently attacked the work while questioning its objectivity. There are also dozens of cited critical reviews attached to the paragraph. It should be clear, in neutral language, that the current consensus leans toward a "complete bullocks" thesis, though without using inflammatory Masterpiece Theatre language. A good argument does not need to "piles" it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.62.66 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that the cited sources did not present it as "a questionable argument" -- but as a complete rubbish argument. See WP:V (again): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." What matters is what the sources say, not what you think is true. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A phrase no longer in the text (that you are focusing on), as well as the text in its current form, both lead with the highly referenced statement that this work is vehemently criticized by mainstream science as pseudoscience. The paragraph concludes that Thompson/Cremo are considered intellectual leaders of a Hindu creationist initiative. Meanwhile, neutrally describing the work's verifiable contents is not an endorsement.

Perhaps ironically, when there are examples of the same sources criticizing the work as "complete rubbish," are commenting on it's utility as a historical compilation in neutral language (Lepper) or "even worse" with a hint of a tip of the cap; or are similarly commenting on the work as a study of the sociology of the discipline (Murray, others) - these are deleted as anathematic. Not that such statements need to be in this paragraph (they are not), but accurate, neutral language and reporting is preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.62.66 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue & unscientific assessments of Thompson's work

I would note that most of the article is now on a couple of Thompson's books, that collectively garnered a single review, and five pages or so of mention, both from 'relationship between science and religion' scholars, rather than actual scientists in the fields Thompson was purporting to 'critique'. I Would suggest (i) that this is WP:UNDUE weight, compared to the far greater amount that has been written on Forbidden Archeology & (ii) fails WP:FRINGE by failing to give an indication of the level of scientific acceptance of these claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

These two books garnered several reviews. The article is not finished yet so please give me some time. Forbidden Archeology deserves a standalone article which can be based on the "far greater amount" of material that has been written on it.Gaura79 (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Such as Theta: The Journal of the Psychical Research Foundation? What a ludicrously WP:FRINGE source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with you on this one. Fortunately, there're other sources which are reliable.Gaura79 (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So why did you add it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't check who was the publisher [4]. But the reviewer is notable and may be we could include something from his review of Thompson's book. What do you think?Gaura79 (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how a psychologist has any scientific expertise relevant to the claims made in Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science? (i) There's little indication that George is notable. (ii) Notable≠reliable (and the latter almost always trumps the former). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The book was NOT published by an academic or scientific press. Nor was it marketed as such. It is commentary utilizing a Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophical perspective while drawing upon a credentialed background in the sciences that includes a Ph.D. from Cornell in mathematics, along with credentialed scientific publications and other works (according to C. McKenzie Brown, Zygon 2003 v37 n1 page 102, "Transposed Passages). While we can argue that Brown is not a scientist, he is a notable scholar who understands what academic and scientific credentials and publications are. Ironically, Hrafn quoted Brown ad nauseam when he felt Brown supported his own point of view.

It can also be noted the multiple commentaries on Thompson's religion and science work in ''Zygon, a prominent religion and science journal. That is because the notable topic under consideration is religion and science.

Meanwhile, concerning Granville Henry's analysis, Henry was a mathematics and philosophy professor at the "highly selective" Claremont McKenna College. Here is a link to a few of his philosophical papers. A couple of his essays posted on "religion-online.org" meter over 10000 hits. WorldCat lists over 3 doz works. While arguably Henry not THE dominant thinker in out time, his credentials are solid. Sdmuni108 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What a pack of WP:Complete bollocks:

1. The book in question was sent, unsolicited, to a large number of paleoarchaeologists -- so clearly was aimed at the scientific community.
2. The inclusion of "archaeology" in the title confirms this.
3. "It is commentary [gross distortion] utilizing a Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophical perspective [well-documented dishonest creationist tactics]"
4. Thompson does not have "a credentialed background in the sciences"
5. No, I state as a clear and indisputable fact "that Brown is not a scientist". I did not quote "Brown ad nauseam" -- in fact I don't think I quoted him at all. I merely cited him, along with a long list of other sources, as placing Thompson in the context of Vedic Creationism.
6. Whether Claremont McKenna College is "highly selective" or not is completely irrelevant -- what is relevant is whether Henry is in a position to assess the scientific worth of Thompson's claims. I would suggest that clearly he is not.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUE & WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

Presenting the views of single, not-particularly-prominent, non-scientific writers as some sort of wider consensus ("He has been described as...) prominently in the lead violates both WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV & WP:DUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV problem. Note that in the lead opinion of three (not a single one) scholars (not writers) is presented.Gaura79 (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A Historian of Religion is NOT a WP:RS for matters of science

So no, you cannot cite Rothstein for issues relating to science.

Also, the claim that "Thompson introduced the concept of 'higher dimensional science'" (and demonstrates Rothstein's ignorance) is WP:Complete bollocks -- 'higher dimensions' were introduced by Ludwig Schläfli in the 19th century -- and have been a matter of frequent inquiry in the field of physics ever since. I don't know what Rothstein means it to mean -- but it doesn't mean what he means. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you on that. We are dealing here with a religious figure and author who wrote on science and other topics from a Hindu perspective. He happened to have PhD in mathematics but he was not primarily a scientist (or pseudoscientist), he was a writer and a religious leader. This as an issue primarily related to religion, and not to science. By the way, Rothstein's book is based on his PhD dissertation which he defended in 1993 in University of Copenhagen. Which means that he's a specialist in the field of ISKCON's relation to science and is a as reliable source in this field as can be. Also it's obvious that his description of Thompson as "leading figure" etc is a consensus opinion among scholars who studied the field. Thompson consistently described in those terms in many sources. If you think that it is not so, than please provide RS sources that state otherwise (like that Thompson was not a prominent writer on science in ISKCON, he was not a leading figure etc.). For now I will remove your unsubstantiated tags from the article. I will also correct the statment on higher dimensional science. What Rothstein meant is that Thompson formulated Vaishnava perspective on that. Gaura79 (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A more WP:DUE approach would be to summarise Rothstein & Brown with: "A number of religious scholars, including Danish historian of religion Mikael Rothstein and C. Mackenzie Brown, professor of religion at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas, have praised his work." Lengthy quotes don't belong in the lead in the first place -- quotes from individuals who neither have any particular prominence, or any particular expertise for the subject matter, have even less place there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that statements like "prominent critic of science", "prominent writer on science" from religious perspective can be considered a praise of his work. Those are mere evaluations of his role in ISKCON and it's relation to science. But yes, his work was also praised to a certain extent by the scholars you mentioned, so it can be incorporated into the lead.Gaura79 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Danish historian of religion Mikael Rothstein described Thompson as "ISKCON's dominating figure in science" and as "the single dominating writer on science" in ISKCON. According to Rothstein in case with Thompson ISKCON has chosen "to let a single person cover the field of science more or less on his own". Thompson introduced the concept of 'higher dimensional science' and wrote extensively on scientific subjects from this perspective. C. Mackenzie Brown, professor of religion at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas, described him a "leading figure in ISKCON's work in this respect[= on science]" and as "the leading figure in the movement's critique of modern science in the light of Vedic spiritual (or "higher dimensional") science".

This material is very clearly about science -- and so needs a scientific perspective. And no, Rothstein is only an expert of the religious aspect of "ISKCON's relation to science" -- he may legitimately pontificate on whether Thompson's claims make for good theology -- NOT for whether they make for good science. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Although the word "science" is mentioned, from the context it is perfectly clear that the whole thing is not about science, but about Thompson (religious author and leader with some scientific background) writing on religious aspect of ISKCON's/ Hinduism's relation to science or writing religious critique on science. That's why it doesn't necessarily need a scientific perspective, what it needs a historian of religion's perspective, evaluationg his historical role in the religion and its relation to science. What those quotes from a historian of religion show is exactly that: Thompson's historical role in the religion he professed.Gaura79 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"in science" is "not about science"? The article presents Thompson as in some way qualified to write "from the perspective of a scientist" and to offer "serious instabilities and internal contradictions" in scientific paradigms and a "critique of modern astronomy". I would strongly suggest that this is "represent[ing] content strictly from the perspective of the minority view", and thus WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't get your point. Where does it say in the article that Thompson was "in some way qualified to write from the perspective of a scientist"? What is obvious from the sources and from the article is that he simply was a religious leader with a PhD who was chosen by his religion to represent itself in science and religion debate, to formulate ISKCON's position towards science. No more than that. That why he's notable. Judging from his religious perspective Thompson have found "serious instabilities and internal contradictions" in scientific paradigms and criticized modern astronomy, but what all of this have to do with science? The article is about a religious figure/author, that's why his work was covered by religious scholars.Gaura79 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that this article is written "strictly from the perspective of the minority view" -- that view being that a PhD in an unrelated field, and a mountain of religious enthusiasm, in some bizarre way qualifies Thompson to critique well-established science in areas where he has no expertise. You yourself implicitly acknowledge this when you state "Judging from his religious perspective Thompson...". This article IS NOT a soapbox for Thompson's "religious perspective". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's make it clear. Thompson was a religious leader. What qualifies Thompson "to critique well-established science" is not his education or lack of it, but his religious position in ISKCON. ISKCON entrusted him with writing on science and criticizing science from ISKCON's perspective and that's what is covered in the RS. Scientists who are specialists in the respective fields may have or may have not evaluated his opinion/claims, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that his work as a religious author/figure has received significant critical attention which makes him notable and allows us to write this article. I'm writing this article based on RS and if you don't like what those RS have to say about Thompson - that's not my problem. You can always find other RS and add to the article alternative viewpoints. Until then your claim that the article is written "strictly from the perspective of the minority view" is utterly unsubstantiated. Whether you like it or not, Thompson's religious perspective has a right to be presented in this article because it was a subject of in-depth analysis in reliable, independent sources.Gaura79 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is another authoritative perspective that hopefully helsp get a mature focus on Thompson's work. It is from a notable figure in religion (specifically Hinduism) and science, concerning Thompson's God & Science. The author is Varadaraja Raman and his critique of Thompson's work appeared in the Templeton Foundation journal, Science & Theology News (April 2005, p. 42). While the Foundation currently does not maintain an archive online, the notable Hindu Vivek Kendra does, as an essay on their website.

Of note is Raman's description of Thompson as a "mathematician ... with a solid physics and mathematics background." There is no talk of attempting to prove creationist theory. Rather, Raman describes the work as a discussion of "the richness and multiplicity in human culture."

According to Wikipedia, Raman's own scientific background includes a doctorate in theoretical physics under the direction of the Nobel Prize winner, Louis de Broglie. Raman's website further describe his scientific work, as well as his work on the relationship between Hinduism and worldview and science. Raman appears to be a notable authority able to intelligently critique Thompson's work, and in an appropriate forum.

I'll post some relevant thoughts from Raman, here:

"God & Science is mathematician Richard Thompson’s well-written collection of essays, showing the connection between science-and-religion and Hinduism. Through the book, Thompson proves himself to be a thoughtful writer with a solid mathematics and physics background. Furthermore, he shows a clear understanding of Hindu and other religious texts and a devotional sympathy for Vaishnavism, a metaphysically sophisticated form of Hinduism dedicated to the worship of Vishnu, a major Hindu god. Thompson clearly argues that the myths surrounding Vaishnava literature can be meaningfully interpreted in terms of current science — in conjunction with the many-worlds theory, geological time scales or evolution.

"The book’s chapter themes range from cosmology to consciousness..... In the process, God & Science explains, in laymen’s terms, some of the complex ideas of current physics.... Most technical physicists wouldn’t concur with efforts to harness physics into a God-centered worldview, but this book will open readers’ eyes to the richness and multiplicity in human culture. For those who take God as the substratum of the universe, this Vaishnavite version of that conviction will prove both interesting and insightful." Sdmuni108 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1. DON'T post links to wikipedia articles as ELs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie Louis de Broglie] [[Louis de Broglie]]
2. DON'T lard your post up with links to barely-relevant genuine external links.
3. DO post a link to the article you're actually discussing -- or at the very least a full bloody citation. "relevant"≠"the bits that say nice things about Thompson".

No link or citation given, therefore nothing here to discuss. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 23:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you did in fact post a link -- after the long barrage of irrelevancies. A short & superficial piece (you appear to have quoted most of it), by a writer who seems far more active in 'Science & Religion' than in science itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like more technical histrionics. Perhaps better that, then deal with substance? You guessed it, the fellow's prominent in science and religion, with a thorough well-established science background. Perhaps some of those links helped get the point through, gosh darn it. Sdmuni108 (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sdmuni108 for that vacuous piece of chearleading from the Richard L. Thompson Fanclub™. No, "the fellow" doesn't appear to be particularly prominent at all (from the lack of sourcing for his article) and does not appear to have worked in science for a good many decades. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITESHORT

Given that this article only references a multiple pieces from a single book, using {{harvnb}} templates makes no sense, but simply over-complicates things. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I intend to use it only to cite this book. I don't see how it "over-complicates things". What you did with your last edit is to remove references I've just added to the article, not only the template. This is unacceptable.Gaura79 (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You went ahead and unilaterally imposed this formatting without gaining a consensus and without offering a good reason for your change -- what the fuck did you expect other than to be reverted? And giving consecutive citations to consecutive pages is just cluttering up the article -- consolidate the damn citations for goodness sake! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also please do not remove the comments and tags left about sources another editor has added without consensus please. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Something smells fishy. Is that a rainbow trout jumping off my screen?! Sdmuni108 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources and due weight

Trying to abstract from the (often heated and long-winded) debate, what we have is:

1. A large number of (generally, but not exclusively) scientific sources placing Thompson in the context of Vedic creationism and/or criticising Forbidden Archeology.
2. A small handful of exclusively 'Science & Religion'-focused sources placing Thompson in the context of ISKCON's relationship with science, and discussing Thompson's other books.
3. No sources at allplacing Thompson as a 'religious figure' outside the context of (1) & (2).

I would therefore suggest that WP:WEIGHT requires us to place primary emphasis on the first aspect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would further point out that having the bulk of the article cited to a single book review, and 5 pages out of a single PhD thesis, is ludicrously unbalanced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 00:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Thompson is primarily known as the co-author of FA, so nobody stops us from expanding the section on FA. But please also note that Thompson was already notable before FA was first published in 1993 (for example, Rothstein wrote his monograph before that date). Also, on FA Thompson was a mere co-author. The book should have it's own page on Wiki where it can get the due weight. I also removed "mathematician" from the description as it is obvious he was not notable as a mathematician.Gaura79 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

5 pages in a PhD thesis ≠ notability. No, Thompson was not "already notable before FA". The fact that Thompson was "a mere co-author" does not alter the fact that the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources give far greater prominence to this than to anything else he has written -- and therefore, per WP:WEIGHT, so must the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the fact that he was not prominent as a mathematician does not alter the fact that this was the field that he received his PhD in & worked in. He was a mathematician, just one that was more prominent for issues only peripherally related to mathematics. The lead would be failing to summarise the biography section if it didn't at least give a single word of mention to this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We are talking not about "5 pages in a PhD thesis", but about in-depth coverage of Thompson's pre FA work in multiple RS. The lead should reflect the content of the article and the article in not only about FA.Gaura79 (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! Most of the article is cited to 5 pages of a PhD thesis & a single review. The lead should give WP:DUE weight to the balance of reliable sources. The current lead is badly written, incoherently organised, and filled with trivia & excessive quotes, apparently designed to make Thompson look good & provide maximum camouflage for the fact that his work is regarded by the scientific community as "pure humbug". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Most of the article is cited to 5 pages of a PhD thesis & a single review" - the article is far from being finished, I will cite more reviews and more pages from Rothstein. I've made some research and found about a dozen reviews of his books. "The lead should give WP:DUE weight to the balance of reliable sources" - no, the lead should summarize the content of the article. "The current lead is badly written, incoherently organised, and filled with trivia & excessive quotes" - I would not go as far as calling two-three word quotes "excessive" and calling trivial information on Thompson being a member of ISKCON, a disciple of ISKCON's founder, a founding member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, and author of other books and articles besides FA. Also it is a fact, that some of his work (other than FA) is not regarded by the scientific community as "pure humbug".Gaura79 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether "finished" or not, this level of emphasis to two not-particularly-prominent sources is patently WP:UNDUE (unless we're intending writing a whole book on the subject). WP:LEDE states: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." Note how this very closely parallels WP:DUE -- and bases weight on sources, not article body. Also note that it states a "concise overview" -- not a rambling, quote-ridden one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

POV dog's breakfast of a lead

Here are some of the more obvious flaws of this piece of shite:

• "...and Gaudiya Vaishnava religious figure" -- except that Thompson has no notability as a "religious figure", except in the context of Vedic creationism & ISKCON's views on science -- which are already discussed in the lead. Nor is this very vague claim ever substantiated in the article.
• "Thompson also published several books and articles on religion and science, Hindu cosmology and astronomy." largely duplicates "He was also known, in the 'science and religion' community, for his articulation of the ISKCON's view of science"
• "He was a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement or ISKCON), a disciple of ISKCON's founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and a founding member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute" -- largely duplicates the 'Biography section -- excessive detail for a lead.
• "the scientific branch of ISKCON." Nonsense! It would be more accurate to describe it as "the pseudoscientific branch"
• "which he termed 'higher dimensional science'." Misleading, as everybody else takes "higher dimensional" to mean something completely different.
• "Danish historian of religion Mikael Rothstein described Thompson as 'the single dominating writer on science" in ISKCON whom ISKCON has chosen to 'cover the field of science more or less on his own'. -- lengthy & completely WP:UNDUE quote of a single, not particularly prominent academic, representing the minority view of Thompson.
• "C. Mackenzie Brown, professor of religion at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas, described him as 'the leading figure in the movement's critique of modern science in the light of Vedic spiritual (or "higher dimensional") science'." -- another lengthy & completely WP:UNDUE quote of a single, not particularly prominent academic, representing the minority view of Thompson.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally starting this discussion.

• "and Gaudiya Vaishnava religious figure" all the sources (whether scientific or not) never fail to mention his religious affiliation. Even FA was written with a purpose to prove Gaudiya Vaishnava religious viewpoint. So obviously he was first a religious figure and author, and then everything else.
• "Thompson also published several books and articles on religion and science, Hindu cosmology and astronomy." largely duplicates "He was also known, in the 'science and religion' community, for his articulation of the ISKCON's view of science" - I don't see how one thing duplicates the other. The fact that he has written books and articles is one fact, the fact that he "was also known, in the 'science and religion' community, for his articulation of the ISKCON's view of science" is another fact.
• "He was a member of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement or ISKCON), a disciple of ISKCON's founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and a founding member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute" -- largely duplicates the 'Biography section -- excessive detail for a lead. - I think this should be there. This information is essential. It informs the reader of his religious affiliation which was central to his work.
• "the scientific branch of ISKCON." Nonsense! It would be more accurate to describe it as "the pseudoscientific branch" - well, this is how it's described in RS. Since it's called ISKCON's scientific branch I think there can be no misunderstanding.
• "Danish historian of religion Mikael Rothstein described Thompson as 'the single dominating writer on science" in ISKCON whom ISKCON has chosen to 'cover the field of science more or less on his own'. -- lengthy & completely WP:UNDUE quote of a single, not particularly prominent academic, representing the minority view of Thompson. - this is not a minority or majority view on Thompson, this is everybody's view on Thompson. Who would argue with this statement? Show me RS that state otherwise. Rothstein is quite prominent academic in Denmark and is a specialist in the field of ISKCON and science. Find me another scholar who is a specialist in this field and who has different opinion of Thompson and than we start talking.
• "which he termed 'higher dimensional science'." Misleading, as everybody else takes "higher dimensional" to mean something completely different. - no, it's not misleading. It's clearly stated that Thompson formulated ISKCON's view on science and called it 'higher dimensional science'. What is misleading? I will add a whole section on 'higher dimensional science' to the article, so it could be and should be mentioned in the lead.
• "C. Mackenzie Brown, professor of religion at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas, described him as 'the leading figure in the movement's critique of modern science in the light of Vedic spiritual (or "higher dimensional") science'." - again, this is not a minority view, because not a single scientific RS that trashed Thompson's FA work would disagree with this statment. The whole FA book is actually a religious critique of science. If not Thompson, who is than "the leading figure in the movement's critique of modern science"?Gaura79 (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1. An apologist for a religion is not the same as a "religious figure" within that religion. There are large numbers of 'Christian apologists' who, while the would pervasively be described as such, would most certainly not be described as 'Christian religious figures'. "Religious figure" implies that the person is in some way the focus of the religion -- which Thompson clearly is not. It is vague, imprecise & misleading in this context.
2. What part of "concise overview" are you failing to comprehend? It is stating the same thing over and over -- his "books and articles on religion and science, Hindu cosmology and astronomy" ARE "his articulation of the ISKCON's view of science"
3. No, it is not "essential" to repeat his religious affiliation over and over again, both generally and to particular organisations. Thompson IS NOT notable for being "a disciple of ISKCON's founder A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada", he IS NOT notable for being "a founding member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute" & his religious affiliation is already covered with "was also known, in the 'science and religion' community, for his articulation of the ISKCON's view of science"
4. No, a "professor of religion" IS NOT a WP:RS for the claim that it is a scientific institution. This is an extraordinary claim, and so requires an extraordinary source, per WP:REDFLAG.
5. You have provided no substantiation for the claim that "Rothstein is quite prominent academic in Denmark"
6. Who would argue? Richard "Pure Humbug" Leakey, for one. Kenneth Feder, for another. The American Journal of Physical Anthropology, the British Journal for the History of Science -- need I go on with the long list of less prominent supporting cast members?
7. Given that "higher dimensional"/"multidimensional" already has a widely-known (it has also spread into science fiction quite heavily) meaning, its bald usage here cannot help but confuse. A lead is not the place for peripheral, unexplained jargon.
8. (i) Most scientific sources would consider "Vedic spiritual (or "higher dimensional") science" to be an oxymoron. (ii) Even his severest critics would most probably agree that Adolph Hitler was "a guy with a funny moustache" -- that does not mean that this should be included in the lead of his article. Most scientific sources would consider Thompson's religious motivations entirely peripheral to his mangling of the scientific evidence -- and it is not giving WP:DUE weight to emphasise this claim in the article's lead.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

An apologist for a religion is not the same as a "religious figure" within that religion. There are large numbers of 'Christian apologists' who, while the would pervasively be described as such, would most certainly not be described as 'Christian religious figures'. "Religious figure" implies that the person is in some way the focus of the religion -- which Thompson clearly is not. It is vague, imprecise & misleading in this context. - he was not an apologist. He was chosen by ISKCON to represent itself in the science-religion field, therefore he clearly was a religious figure. I will come back to discuss other points later.Gaura79 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that ISKCON is a "confederation" according to its article, it seems surprising that it acted in such a monolithic manner. Where did it declare this choice? And in any case, a spokesman-for-a-religion-on-a-single-topic (even if this is established) is not the same as a "religious figure". The pope is a religious figure -- the Vatican press secretary is not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I tracked down the Danish Wikipedia's unsourced stub on Mikael Rothstein -- it simply states (Google Translated):

Mikael Rothstein (1961) is a Danish MA. and Ph.D. History of Religions.

Associate Professor at the Department of History of Religions at the Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen. Author of div. subjects and debate books, including "God is blue ',' UFOs and aliens', 'bomb in his turban' (with Klaus Rothstein)

Together with his brother Klaus Rothstein, he has characterized the Danish debate about particular religion, racism and immigration policy.

Hardly indicative of notability -- and would most probably get deleted on the English Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD close changed to non-consensus

If anyone is unsure why this article was undeleted, see [[See User talk:DGG/Archive 56 Sep. 2011#Favour. Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Other writings

Does the section "Other writings" have the due weight it is given in the article? Considering the scarcity of the mention of these books in secondary sources it does appear to be long. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Most of this section is on the strength of a single, not particularly prominent, source -- so can probably be considered WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll be bold. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There're three sources cited in the section and all of them are perfectly independent and reliable. Calling them "minor" will not help to push your cause. Please also not, that although Thompson's name is most frequently mentioned in relation to Forbidden Archeology, he was not the principal author of that book and his other, solo work (which was not dismissed as pseudoscientific garbage) should be described. Removal of well-sourced content I personally consider vandalism. BTW, Forbidden Archeology definetly deserves to have a separate page on Wikipedia. Gaura79 (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of this section is cited to a single source, Rothstein, who I described as "not particularly prominent" -- NOT as "minor". The other three sources only account for 5 sentences between them. "Please also not [sic]" WP:WEIGHT which "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Calling meeting the requirements of this core policy "vandalism" is GROSS violation of WP:AGF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would further point out that, as we have no serious scientific assessment of these other works (but only assessments from the field of the relationship between science and religion), we have no way of knowing whether the scientific community would dismiss them as yet more "pseudoscientific garbage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Since books in question belong to the field of theology, religious cosmology etc., there's no need for scientific assesment. Assessments from the field of the relationship between science and religion is sufficient. After looking at what you've said in this discussion, I'd like to remind you, that more important than rules is the spirit of Wikipedia. Lets take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars:

We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable.

I firmly believe that what you are trying to pull off here is radically against "the principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules". And even if we discard the spirit of Wikipedia and stick to WP:WEIGHT, I don't see how the section you're trying to remove contradicts anything in WP:WEIGHT. It "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If on some of the Thompson's work there is only one "significant viewpoint", this viewpoint should be presented in the article. Therefore I can't agree with you when you say that because Thompson's contribution to Forbidden Archeology is the most covered part of his work, his contributions in other fields are not worthy to be described in the article. Ultimately, our aim should be to create an article that describes Thompson's contribution to the world, and not to strip it bare naked and than nominate it again for deletion, saying that the guy hasn't done anything to deserve to be on Wikipedia. I understand that you're on a crusade against pseudoscience in Wikipedia, but please, try to be more objective and neutral. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a courtroom battle and instead, let's try to follow the spirit of Wikipedia by working cooperatively on creating a decent article.Gaura79 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The three books in question are:

1. Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science
2. A "religious critique of modern astronomy"This demonstrates a
3. A compilation of articles "Thompson wrote about 'Science: The Vedic View'"

This demonstrates a clear and compelling "need for scientific assesment" of these writings.

Your hand-waving completely ignores the fact that this section gives GROSSLY undue weight to a single article, by a single not-particularly-prominent academic on his "other work" over the dozens of criticisms, includsing by prominent scientists of Forbidden Archeology. Giving over approximately half the article to a single paper by a single not particularly prominent academic IS NOT "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Using copies of letters on unofficial websites

I've never seen any discussion at RSN about copies of letters that accepted them as sources. And in fact unless the authors gave permission for their letters to be posted there, that's copyvio and the link itself a violation of policy on copyright. Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree. I wouldn't view it as reliable, and a potential copyright violation. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the first letter was being cherry picked for positive comments as well. From what the guy has said, he didn't even read the whole book (and possibly nothing beyond Chapter 3). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I humbly submit that fairness obliges us to allow these quotations.

The best of scholars routinely use copies of letters as sources. Academic libraries are full of books of correspondence between scientists and their colleagues and others. Copies of letters are routinely submitted and accepted as evidence in courts of law. Would either of you wish to dispute this?

"Copyright violation" is not just a placard slogan one can hold up in protest. It is a matter of law. And I see no evidence here that any violation has taken place. In any discussion of copyright, a quotation of two or three sentences, like those here, would at once be accepted as "fair use." And "fair use," by definition, is not a violation.

Every year, publishers all over the world publish tens of thousands of books whose jackets they routinely fill (without asking permission) with short quotations from copyrighted reviews. Which one of you would like to step forward and say that by doing so those publishers are violating copyright?

Courts have recognized, also, that "Violation of copyright!" should not be unduly used as a tool to stifle free discourse.

That the linked site publishes images of these two letters, rather than merely typing them fresh, does not constitute a violation of copyright, unless one wishes to operate under the novel (and obviously untenable) theory that the images are original works of art.

That ought to be enough. But on top of that, in regard to Josephson's memo: When a man sends an author a brief, positive endorsement of the author's book, the presumption that the writer of the endorsement understands that it will be published is overwhelming.

The comments above concern general principles of copyright. I have also carefully read the Wikipedia:COPYVIO page, which seems largely aimed at making sure that Wikipedia steers clear of legal violations (as well as violations of ethical rights). I see nothing on the Wikipedia:COPYVIO page that would contradict what I've written above or justify deleting on the grounds of copyright policy the quotations under discussion.

Also: I see no reason why these letters should not be viewed as reliable. The authors are men of impeccable and relevant credentials. And their statements are sourced to an ultra-strong demonstration that the letters are legitimate: not merely a published citation but images of the letters themselves, dated and signed, on institutional letterhead.

If letters are to be disallowed, what should we do with the quotation from Dr. Leakey? As indicated by his use of the second-person pronoun, it is certainly taken from a personal communication -- a letter -- addressed to Cremo or Thompson or their publisher (or any combination of the three). Applying "the principle of similar cases" ("Similar cases deserve to be treated in a similar way"), if we disallow as a copyright violation the quotations from the letters by Wigner and Josephson we should also disallow the quotation from the letter by Leakey (which I would certainly want to keep). Alternatively, if we think we should allow the quotation from Leakey, then, by the same "principle of similar cases," we should also allow the ones from Wigner and Josephson.

And how do we know that the quotation from Dr. Leakey is genuine? We've seen no original. But Thompson and Cremo published it on the back of their book, and presumably we (and others who have republished it) take their word for it that the text accurately represents what Dr. Leakey said.

Again applying "the principle of similar cases," if we take Thompson and Cremo's word for it that Dr. Leakey's letter is genuine, certainly we have no reason not to take Thompson's word for the quotations from Wigner and Josephson, which Thompson publishes on the back cover of his book. And this is even more so when we've seen images of the original letters.

IRWolfie-, if you feel that the comments from Dr. Wigner's letter have been cherry-picked, a constructive approach would be to suggest we include what you think ought not to have been left out.

Earlier you wrote, IRWolfie-, "Requiring that all sources have specific qualifications is rather arbitrary." That's a statement with which I might take issue. But if you genuinely have such a generous approach to sources and their qualifications, for you to deny the sturdy sources here at issue would be worse than arbitrary. No?

I solicit your consistent generosity of mind.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Tools such as photoshop are one reason we don't use sources such as these letters. Our policy on copyvio would be another. We also should not use blurbs on books (or booksellers sites such as Amazon) - we should only use the original sources. If the authors had these letters on their websites we could use that. That's the way we work, and there's no point in discussing it here. You can ask at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller. Given what can be done with Photoshop, that does make sense. I don't understand how the WP policy would kick in here, but it's a moot point. Thank you for bringing the issue to clarity.

What happens, then, with the quotation from Dr. Leakey's letter (which I'd actually like to keep)?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply. It's an issue I'd wondered about, but I think the answer is to find a reliable source mentioning it (in some sort of context). Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller. Because of international travel, I've been slow also. There are a few posts on this page to which I ought to reply. I should gradually get to them. Thanks again. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)