Jump to content

User talk:Hoopes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Sources of Ideas

You may have to search a bit to find good article topics that haven't already been created, but there is always work to be done in modifying and improving existing entries. There are many good sources of ideas for needed articles online.

Hall of Ma'at

The Hall of Ma'at website (http://hallofmaat.com) has regular discussions of hot topics in debates about pseudoarchaeology. The Bad Archaeology website (http://www.badarchaeology.net) does, too. New ones are appearing all of the time. However, it's important to choose something that is not too trivial. Meaningful topics are ones that are represented by bestselling books or that appear (as with the 2012 phenomenon as major Internet memes.

New Entries (Already Claimed)

If you have picked the entry on which you'll be working, you may list it here.

Articles for Revision (Already Claimed)

Possible New Entries

The following is a partial wish list of just some of the entries that I would like to see created (in red) and/or improved (in blue). Please feel free to add additional entries that you would like to see! (I'll be adding more, too, as I find time.) If you decide to take one of these, please sign after it (with four tildes) so other students will know it's already taken.

Individuals

Note that others that may be relevant and appropriate can be found in the "Index of Names" that begins on p. 393 of Stephen Willams' book Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory.

  • George Carter - 20th century archaeologist; author of Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in America. (He's not yet one of the George Carters listed on the disambiguation page.)
  • Hertha von Dechend - co-author, with Giorgio de Santillana of Hamlet's Mill (1969).
  • Rand Flem-Ath - co-author of When the Sky Fell and The Atlantis Blueprint.
  • Jeffrey Goodman -Author and psychic archaeologist.
  • J. Norman Emerson -Canadian archaeologist who "pioneered Intuitive Archaeology." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeviK3a (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Places

Note: Also acceptable would be entries on archaeological sites formerly attributed to Moundbuilders such as those sites (many of which have been altered or destroyed ) that were described in the 1894 publication by Cyrus Thomas.

  • Heiligenberg - archaeological site near Heidelberg (see Ch. 7, p. 167 in Archaeological Fantasies); this will require an addition to the disambiguation page

Objects

Organizations

  • Debvabhasa school of Indian revisionism - see Ch. 9 (p. 217) in Archaeological Fantasies

Entries for Revision

The following entries already exist but are in need of substantial revision. If you decide to take one of these, please sign after it (with four tildes) so other students will know it's already taken.

You may also find topics needing cleanup, revision, or other improvement listed on the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Pseudoscience

KU Student Authors

Please sign this list (with four tildes) once you've created your Wikipedia user account. You should also add a short statement about what entry you'll be creating or working on. (You can see how your user page should appear by clicking on those of other students.)

Levi Keach here LeviK3a (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia has no page for Psychic Archaeology, would this be an acceptable project? - LeviK3a (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Levi. This is an excellent topic! Hoopes (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Professor Hoopes, I think that I am ready to go live with my article on psychic archaeology, could you take a look at it and see if I've made any mistakes or forgotten anything before I release it into Wikipedia at large? LeviK3a (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep. I'll have a look at it and leave some comments soon. Hoopes (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Psychic archaeology is now live. --LeviK3a (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirby Anderson Kirbyleekansas (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I plan on doing Josiah Priest. Is that alright?

Yes. That's a good choice, Kirby! The lessons to be learned from the effects of Josiah Priest's publications in early 19th century America are ones that shouldn't be forgotten. Hoopes (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Brie Wight bri3jor I would like to cover the Tucson Artifacts. These are fascinating discoveries and the explanations are quite intriguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri3jor (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I like it! You'll find a lot on this subject in Stephen Williams' Fantastic Archaeology. Do note that this book was published in 1991. You'll want to make your entry up-to-date by consulting some more recent publications. Hoopes (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Vanvance (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I was very interested in Jacob Gass and his findings, I know the Library is a great resources, but can you think of any other resources I might be able to use?

Another excellent topic! I suspect the library will be your best bet, especially given that Gass is a 19th century subject. You should look up some of the original discussions about his findings that were made at the time. (There may also be some discussion in the monograph by Cyrus Thomas. There are also some good sources mentioned in Fantastic Archaeology. You can also use the Web, of course, and perhaps write to the local historical society in Davenport, Iowa for some recommendations. Hoopes (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chhaya Kolavalli Ckolavalli (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Working on Dwarka, the submerged city off the west coast of India

Good choice! It's a fascinating site and one that's attracted a lot of interest. Hoopes (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Kincaid Hkincaid (talk) I am going to do my wiki project on Philip Ainsworth Means if that's alright! —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks! He's an important figure. Note that most of his work in South America was very high quality. Even great archaeologists can sometimes be wrong... Hoopes (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jmlies721 (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Ligourio Pyramid

Dana Schwab---- I would like to do Forgotten Technology but I'm afraid I'll run out of things to say about Wally Wallington. Are there other forms of forgotten technology I can talk about? Thanks!

Hi Dana. You need to sign your post with four tildes so that I can have a link to your talk page. I have a copy of Wally Wallington's CD that I can bring to class tomorrow. Yes, there are other sources on "discovering" forgotten technology. I'll help you to look for them. Hoopes (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Brigid Dunn---Hey Dr. Hoopes, my friend was telling me about the caveman diet,a modern diet based on the historical diet of cave people. It got me thinking about doing a page on the actual diet of cavemen, or something along that line...evolution of diet maybe? Do you have any suggestions? Brigidsu (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brigid! I think it would depend on which cave people you mean. Ancient humans lived in caves in a wide variety of different habitats in many different geographic regions, from China to Iraq to France to Mexico to Peru and elsewhere. They ate different specific things, which had more to do with hunter/gatherer lifestyles than living in caves. Is there an entry on "the caveman diet"? Some critical thinking about what it really represents would be in order. That is, does "the caveman diet" represent good archaeological interpretation or gimmicky sale hype? (Or a combination of both?) Hoopes (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Adrienne Birt Abirt4 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I would like to do my page on the concept: Science of Unitary Human Beings.

Cool! You'll find some good leads in the article by Alan Sokal in Archaeological Fantasies. Be sure to check primary sources! Hoopes (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Robby Proctor RobProctor (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I Would like to do my assignment on Guillermo Dupaix. Any suggestions for research? Thanks!

Good for you! He's a fascinating and colorful character (as are many in the history of Maya archaeology). As you'll see that I've recommended to others, it's always a good idea to go to the original sources. I think Lord Kingsborough's Antiquities of Mexico is calling you... Hoopes (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Emily Evans-Monce EvanyEmlins (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Emily! Do you have any ideas about a topic yet? Hoopes (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I was wondering if 'Paranthropology' (or para-anthropology) would be worthwhile... I ran across this idea and it could possibly be an emerging fringe subsection of pseudo-anthropology. However, I'm not sure if it's limited to being a journal or if there is more to it yet. EvanyEmlins (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I wish I could say, but I don't know what it is. Could you tell me a little more? Hoopes (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jason Randall here, still trying to pick an area to research for the paper, will pick topic this weekend and update post. Vunil (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Erica Henderson HendersonEL (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I would like to research the Holly Oak Gorget. Could you point me toward a good place to dig for information?

Sure! Check out the discussion in Fantastic Archaeology, which should provide some basic references. Be sure to go to the article in Science (I can't remember the specific citation) and use primary soures whenever you can. Hoopes (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Professor Hoopes, I think I'm ready to go live with my article.HendersonEL (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Jacob WhiteJacobwhite (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I'd like to work on the thunderstone page.

Great! It would be good to go back to some of the 18th and 19th century literature (when there were still discussions of the nature of thunderstones) to tell the story of their misinterpretation. Hoopes (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Brie Wight bri3jor I was wondering if I could change my topic to the San Pedro Mummy if no one is doing that one, I'm finding it extremely difficult to find information on the tuscan artifacts. Is it too late for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri3jor (talk • contribs) 14:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you can change your topic if you like. (And someone else can try the Tucson Artifacts.) What's the San Pedro Mummy? Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Brie Wight bri3jor You've probably seen pictures of it. It was a supposed miniature mummy found in 1932 in San Pedro. It was found in a sitting position, and there was an x-ray taken of it, but the mummy mysteriously disappeared.
San Pedro where? (There are a number of them.) Can you give me a link? Hoopes (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ktwest (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I would like to discuss Pleistocene disease if that is alright. I will discuss the transition to farming and the diseases that were spread based on contact with domesticated animals. Would that be an ok topic?

No, I don't think so. What does it have to do with the theme of the course? I'm unclear on why you'd call it "Pleistocene disease" given that the transition to farming happened during the Holocene. Why not tackle some of the controversies over archaeological evidence for Zoonosis? That entry has a section on "Historical development of zoonotic diseases" that could use some expansion and improvement. Hoopes (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)99.191.255.199 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC) yeah I think I will take that topic and refine it. I have actually decided to change my Wikipedia article edit to paleopathology where I will focus on diseases that appear during the transition to farming.

Nathan hutchcraft (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I would like to create a page for Patrick Geryl if that is ok. I find the 2012 theory interesting, but I would like to learn more about it by researching Geryl's theories. Do you have any suggestions or specific things you would like to see on his wikipedia page?

An interesting choice! I think you'll get the best ideas for this entry by looking at entries that have been created for other authors identified as contributors to pseudoscience. Basic biographical information is important, as well as a summary of interests, publications, and activities. Any reviews of his work should come from published sources. While his involvement in the 2012 phenomenon is important, Geryl's interests have gone far beyond that. Be sure to be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines for writing about individuals. Hoopes (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nathan Hutchcraft 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I seem to be having a problem uploading image files onto the website. When I try, it redirects me to a page saying that my account has been flagged to limit certain actions, including uploading files. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan hutchcraft (talk • contribs)

Jason Randall Vunil (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) If Brie does not want to take on the Tuscan artifacts, I would like to take a shot at it.

Okay. Why don't you query Brie on her talk page to make sure she's chosen something else and that it's okay to take this. I think it would be a good topic for someone to do. Hoopes (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jhawkfan1 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Megan Allen I will do mine on Samuel Kirkland Lothrop if that is ok.Jhawkfan1 (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhawkfan1 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good choice. Be sure to comment on his research concerning the stone spheres of Costa Rica. Hoopes (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could tell me if I published it correctly because I'm not sure if I finalized it. Thanks.Jhawkfan1 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Brigid Dunn, ok, I'm gonna skip over the idea of the caveman diet, there was a lot of "weight loss" info out there for following a caveman-like diet, but it was a bit difficult to narrow it down to actual historical info. Is it ok if I do the Epigraphic Society instead? Thanks Brigidsu (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Brigid. An entry on the Epigraphic Society would be good. The main website is http://www.epigraphy.org/ Be sure to review the entry on Barry Fell, who founded it. Hoopes (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Max Wescoe mwescoe (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I talked to you after class last week about doing alternative hypotheses of the Olmecs. I checked the page and it has and alternative section, but it also breaks off to another page which i would like to add David Hatcher Childress' ideas to. i didnt find his name or the book you handed out in class -'the mystery of the olmecs'- as a reference on the page, so i thought that may work...?

Hi Max. When you say "another page", do you mean Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact? You need to specify the page on which you plan to work. (I'll put some additional comments on your talk page.) Hoopes (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Franchesca Conde - I would like to do my research on ancient drumming rituals and how some monolithic sites, like Stonehenge, may have been used and or built for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fconde108 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but what would the Wikipedia entry be? Would you be creating a new entry or addition to an existing one? Would it be an addition to the drum entry, such as a section on "Ancient drumming sites" or "Theories of ancient drumming", or something else? You need to let me know. Hoopes (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to create an addition to the Drum Circle entry. I am researching theories of the drum circle origin and would like to incorporate information on it's evolution. Do you agree on the title "Theories of Origin & Evolution" for my addition? 70.94.218.175 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sam Crooks Sgcrooks (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I would like to use one of your suggested topics and create a Wikipage for Michael Tsarion. I would imagine for the purpose of this class it would emphasize his theories regarding Atlantis?

Nice choice! Since it's a new entry, I think it should provide biographical data as well as discussing his specific theories. A section on Atlantis would be nice, but there are many other things he has addressed, among them the occult, extraterrestrial life, British Israelism, and even the 2012 phenomenon. All of these have tie-ins to interpretations of archaeological evidence and narratives about the past. Be sure to review the information in Wikipedia regarding writing about specific individuals. Tsarion has a big web presence that includes a large number of videos on http://youtube.com. It's critical to provide a balanced perspective based on factual information. You may be challenged on his significance, so provide information that would support his inclusion in Wikipedia. Models would include entries on other authors in the New Age genre. Hoopes (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Alison King Alison.ek (talk) I'd like to use one of your suggested persons: Alberto Ruz Buenfil.

Cool beans! Be sure to link back to the entry on his father Alberto Ruz Lhuillier (which could use some enhancing itself). Hoopes (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Britten Kuckelman Britkuckel (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC) I would like to edit the entry on the Amazon and add a section about what the Myth reveals about Ancient Greek Society.

Okay! You might also comment on how continued reference to the myth also revealed things about the societies that used it. Hoopes (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to do the Vero Beach engravings, if that hasn't already been taken by someone else. Let me know if there are specific sources I should be looking at besides the three you've already provided. -Clare Jordan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjordan89 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, according to the timestamp, Larsonjayhawk (talk) claimed it first. If they change their mind, you can do it. However, they have first dibs. I think it's a great topic, too! It's new, so I'm guessing most of the information will be online. However, you should also try to frame the discovery within a context of studies of Paleolithic and prehistoric art, as well as Paleoindians. Hoopes (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Brie Wight bri3jor (talk) Dr. Hoopes, I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page and see my latest update and make any notes you deem necessary. —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for letting me know. Will do. Hoopes (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Brigid Dunn Hey Dr. Hoopes, could you take a look at my epigraphy society page and maybe suggest some other topics to cover on the page, i feel stuck... thanks brigidsu

Please have a look at the talk page for your entry. Hoopes (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Vance: Professor Hoopes, I ran into some troule concerning my page. For some reason my page is already up for deletion. I will stop by your office hours tomorrow, the problem is that is went up for deletion while I was beginning to format it tonight. Does that mean I loose all of my work? Thanks just thought I would let you know. See you tomorrowVanvance (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page,there was only an image link on the page which didn't work. You created it in article space but should have created it in user space. I've done that, it's now at User:Vanvance/Jacob Gass. Dougweller (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Britten Kuckelman: Britkuckel (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page and see how it looks so far.

Justin Klaas Klsmn22 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I am going to do my wikipedia article on Jeffrey Goodman.

You will need a copy of Kenneth Feder, 1983, "American Disingenuous: Goodman's American Genesis -- A new chapter in cult archaeology", Skeptical Inquirer 7(4): 36-47. An excerpt is here [1]. If he's an academic, you need to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), if not, see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just now read your suggestion. I still have some time to make additions to the article tomorrow. Take a look at what I have so far and let me know what you think Klsmn22 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Brie Wight bri3jor(talk) Dr. Hoopes, I made my page live under "Pedro Mountain Mummy" since I basically revamped the entire page. If you have time could you take one last look at it and give me some feedback? Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Sam Crooks Sgcrooks (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Would you take a look at my article at my user sub-page. I have yet to include the citations I plan on because I haven't quite figured out the citing process. Additionally, there will be a little more content on all his works. Just haven't gotten there as of yet. Thanks. (Also, my brain hurts from having to listen and read his craziness)

Kirby Anderosn User:kirbyleekansas i am trying to insert a reference in order to define a term in my notes section and it doesn't seem to be working, what am i doing wrong? —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Andrew VanceVanvance (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Dr. Hoopes, I finished my wikipedia page over Jacob Gass. I wrote to the publisher of "The Davenport Conspiracy Revisited" requesting if I could get copyright permission to use a couple of the photographs for my page, I did this last week and they still haven't gotten back to me yet. If they do I will be uploading the pictures so viewers can actually see a picture of Reverend Gass since pictures of him are scarce. If you see anything I could do to improve the page or add anything please let me know.

Jason Randall Vunil (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Professor, I have submitted my article on the live page, however I am having issues getting the references to show up properly without errors. I followed what they said to do on their help page, but to no avail. If there is anything you can do to help me with fixing the reference listing I have to properly show my references it would be appreciated, as I have tried several different ways with no success. Thank you

Jason Randall Vunil (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Professor, I have fixed my referencing errors and the final product can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vunil/Tucson_artifacts thanks

Talkback

Hello, Hoopes. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amazons

see [2] - I can see why it was deleted. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral opinion requested

Hi, I see that you are a participant at WikiProject Mesoamerica, and have some knowledge in that area. I'm in an edit dispute at Salvia hispanica (also known as "chia") over the addition of content relating to the plant's use in Mesoamerica. Would you mind giving your opinion at Talk:Salvia hispanica? Thank you, First Light (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Modern Maya

Leaving Mardyks aside for the moment, the biggest current flaw with the 2012 article is its lack of input from the modern Maya. I had to remove all references to modern responses when a particularly vociferous editor challenged the validity of my sources. Do you know of any decent sources that reflect the views of the modern Maya on 2012? Serendipodous 16:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an excellent point. However, I think it's important to point out that both "the ancient Maya" and "the modern Maya" are convenient fictions that deny the considerable variation that has always existed in the culture of Mayan-speaking peoples. (The definition of the term "Maya" itself is a modern invention.) One might as well as for in put that reflects the views of "the Americans" or "the Europeans." The reality is that there are authentic Maya voices that represent New Age views (including ones who reference Atlantis, crystal skulls, ETs, and the like--representing Mayanism), authentic Maya voices that would articulate fundamentalist Protestant Christian views, authentic Maya voices that would articulate non-religious views, and so forth. The search for an authentic, traditional, "pure" Maya view that is free of any syncretism is a Romantic fantasy. You will not find "the views of the modern Maya" but you may find some examples of the views of a modern Maya. One example would be 13 B'aktun: Mayan Visions of 2012 and Beyond by Q'anjobal author Gaspar Pedro González (2010). However, the multiple layers of syncretism in this work include not only González' use of both contemporary Mayanist scholarship and New Age beliefs, but subtle elements of the latter that were added in the translation of the book from Spanish to English by self-confessed New Age scholar Robert Sitler. Another might be reportedly Yucatec author Hunbatz Men's Secrets of Mayan Science/Religion (1990), a translation by New Age writers of Religión ciencia maya (1986), influenced by earlier ideas from Yucatec philosopher Domingo Martínez, whose work (which discusses the concept of Hunab Ku, for example) in turn references Freemasonry. The influences of Franciscans, Jesuits, Freemasons, Theosophists, Protestants of various denominations, anthropologists, New Age hippies, and now the World Wide Web are all at work in the rich mix of culture represented by "the modern Maya," which nonetheless contains a great deal of traditional Maya culture--itself a syncretistic blend of ancient Maya beliefs and those of the Olmecs, Teotihuacanos, Toltecs, and others. The best way to have input of the modern Maya in Wikipedia is to encourage them to participate in the editing of this article. However, the requirement that they do it in English on a computer with Internet access means that "the modern Maya" whose input it gets will not be those who can write only in Spanish, a Mayan language (of which there are LOTS), or who cannot write at all and have no access to Wikipedia. Those latter may provide the most "traditional" or "authentic" input, but they are also the ones who seem least likely to contribute. It's a problem. Hoopes (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Hoopes

Why are you giving Mardyks credit? Serendipodous 17:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think credit should go where credit is deserved. I can send you a PDF of Mardyks' 1991 article in The Mountain Astrologer if you want to check it yourself. I only obtained it a few weeks ago, but the direct quote makes it clear he was referring to a "galactic alignment" and the precession cycle before Jenkins.Hoopes (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that The Mountain Astrologer is not a reliable source. Also, Mardyks is not an accredited expert in his field. That has been the issue since day one, but no one, least of all Mardyks, seems to understand this. Serendipodous 06:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
While you claim that The Mountain Astrologer is not a reliable source, the current Wikipedia article on it notes that, "It was the winner of the 1999 and 2000 Spica Awards for Best Astrology Publication and is widely acknowledged as the world's premiere astrology magazine." Don't you see a contradiction there? Will you be editing that entry for erroneous claims? Hoopes (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what accreditation exists or does not exist for professional astrologers. As far as I know, Mardyks is an expert astrologer and has been practicing as such for at least thirty years. I'm also not clear on why The Mountain Astrologer would not be a reliable source for professional astrology. It's not as if that's an academic discipline! Hoopes (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I would expect an astrologer to have an expertise in astrology. Given that "astrology" means western astrology, which derives ultimately from Babylon and has nothing to do with the Maya, I wouldn't argue he is an expert in the history or astrological practices of the Maya. Serendipodous 08:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
"Astrology" means Western astrology? Not according to Wikipedia! What about Hindu astrology? Chinese astrology? Tibetan astrology? (Will you be deleting those Wikipedia entries?) How about Native American astrology? (A Wikipedia entry that doesn't yet exist.) There are in fact LOTS of non-Western astrologies. Just google on "non-Western astrology" and you'll see. Astrology has nothing to do with the Maya? Try telling that to Bruce Scofield, author of Day Signs: Native American Astrology from Ancient Mexico (1991). Whether Mardyks is an expert in the history or astrological practices of the Maya--that is, Maya astrology--is irrelevant. He represents astrological practices and beliefs relevant to the 2012 phenomenon, which is the result of syncretism. Hoopes (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Mardyks is a western astrologer, not a Mayan one. And by the way, in case you haven't figured it out, which I'm pretty sure you have, Jimini Cricket is Mardyks; he posts under multiple names for reasons known only to him. Serendipodous 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
That's right! However, Western astrology--NOT Mayan astrology--is what's behind the 2012 phenomenon. That's why what Western astrologers have written is so important for understanding both its history and current manifestation. If you were to read Mardyks' 1991 article in The Mountain Astrologer (the one you refuse to have cited in this entry), that would become crystal clear. The claims being made about December 21, 2012 stem from an assignation of the values and interpretations of Western astrology--especially the psychological anthropology of Alan Leo and Dane Rudhyar (who was a personal mentor to José Argüelles)--onto elements of what's known about the ancient Maya calendar. If you read my recent article (Hoopes 2011), you'll see that the influence runs from Pierre d'Ailly to Helena Blavatsky and concepts pertaining to the Age of Aquarius. None of that is Maya, so there is no reason to privilege Maya astrology in the discussion. If you were to read Tzolkin: Visionary Perspectives and Calendar Studies (1994) by John Major Jenkins, you'd see that it's filled with examples of Western astrology that are claimed to be relevant to interpretations of the author's life and human history as well as the Maya calendar. Academic Mayanist scholars don't buy the connections between the two, but that doesn't mean the assertion of a connection is not central to the 2012 mythos. It is! The assertions about astrology--mostly Western astrology--in Hamlet's Mill were central to the work of Terence McKenna and his brother Dennis on the "Timewave Zero" model. So what if Jimini Cricket is Mardyks? He could be the Man in the Moon as far as I care. What matters is not who he is, but what he says. Your own comments about astrology and about topics directly pertinent to the subject of this article suggest you are not especially well informed or well qualified to evaluate its content. I urge you to read some of the work on astrology and apocalypticism by historian of astrology Nicholas Campion, including his recent article about the "Maya prophesy phenomenon," (Campion 2011) before you make any further decisions about what's relevant and what's not Hoopes (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
So write about that! In the context you raise, Mardyks's article constitutes a primary source and any conclusions you draw would be original research. But if there are any secondary papers which say just what you did, then they can certainly be included. Serendipodous 08:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have and am still doing so! The article of mine (Hoopes 2011) cited in the 2012 phenomenon entry represents that, as does a double book review published in the journal Archaeoastronomy (Vol. 22). (Since it's in print, may I now take some of the points from that article and make them in Wikipedia? Or would that constitute self-promotion?) I've been enormously frustrated that an article written in Fall 2009 is still not in print. Hopefully, it will appear soon in 2012: Decoding the Counterculture Apocalypse edited by Joseph Gelfer. However, I'm still unclear on how citing facts and a direct quotation from Mardyks' 1991 article represent "conclusions" or "interpretations." They're facts and a quotation. Does reproducing them constitute "original research"? A better explanation of what's meant by that would help. Hoopes (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It gets tricky. If it didn't, Wikipedia would be a far more harmonious place than it is. Basically it boils down to two axions: 1. Wikipedia cannot interpret, only report. 2. All sources must be reliable. The issue of quoting Mardyks directly, as opposed to an academic paper citing him, is that an astrological publication is the very definition of an unreliable source. Astrologers are not known for the rigour of their peer review. If Mardyks were recognised as a driving force of the 2012 phenomenon, then his writings would be allowed on the basis of notability, but by and large, he isn't. So the source is not useable I'm afraid. Serendipodous 16:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does get tricky. While it is your opinion that an "astrological publication is the very definition of an unreliable source," that's definitely not what astrologers or people who believe in and practice astrology think! A skeptic or atheist might well say "the Bible is the very definition of an unreliable source" or "the Pope is the very definition of an unreliable source." An anarchist might say "the government is the very definition of an unreliable source." The bottom line is that there is no objective "truth" on "the very definition of an unreliable source." Astrologers may well identify Mardyks as "notable" even when you don't. Can you please point me to information on the Wikipedia standards you are using for defining "reliability" and "notability"? Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
From WP:Reliable sources: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars... Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Serendipodous 21:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

For God's sake Hoopes! Wikipedia does not consider an astrological magazine a reliable source! If it did Mardyks would have been included in the article years ago! Why can't you understand this? You're a professional scholar! You must understand that there's no such thing as a creditable astrological degree or anything like established criteria for astrological training standards or peer review! Serendipodous 06:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to editor Dougweller's comments on the discussion page for the 2012 phenomenon entry. There is no doubt whatsoever that Mardyks wrote what he wrote in The Mountain Astrologer, a source whose notability is evidenced by the fact that it has an entry in Wikipedia! The citation has nothing at all do to with the issue of reliability. There is no implication that what Mardyks wrote is a reliable statement, only that the statement was actually made. It is a simple statement of fact that is readily verifiable.Hoopes (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, your statements above suggest that astrology is not your forte. The issue is not whether astrology is reliable or correct or anything of the kind. The issue is one of what professional astrologers actually write and think and when. As noted above, Wikipedia has several entries on astrology. As a cultural and historical phenomenon, it is a legitimate subject of scholarly inquiry. The same is true for pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology, both of which rely upon references to fringe literature Hoopes (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I've left a message on Dougweller's page asking him to clarify whether he thinks The Mountain Astrologer qualifies as a valid source in this context. And as I said above, I have no problem with academic journals siting fringe material; journals have their own authority to back them up. Wikipedia doesn't. And yes sometimes siting fringe sites or articles is valid, but usually only if the person involved has had a significant impact on the concept being discussed. Still, if Dougweller does say on no uncertain terms that he agrees that the source should be kept I will back down. Serendipodous 06:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to reconsider. If you look at the many Wikipedia entries that pertain to pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology, you'll see that fringe literature and publications similar to The Mountain Astrologer are frequently cited. Whether Mardyks himself is notable or not is not the issue here. What matters is that a clear reference to the "galactic alignment" theory appeared in a major publication on astrology years before it was first mentioned by writer John Major Jenkins Hoopes (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I've left a post at WP:RSN. I think it's a valid request, if only after what Mardyks has put me through over that source for the last two years. I'm not entirely sure why you think I have a personal vendetta against Mardyks, Hoopes. He certainly has one against me; that I can assure you. He has them against many people. But I bear him no grudge. I just wish he would leave me alone. Serendipodous 09:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I LOVE all you guys. Really, I do. My motivation has ALWAYS been to help this article not suck! Nothing personal POD. Really! And about that lollipop ... organic and sugar-free, PLEASE. Where would like me to sit? Purrrr. Purrrr. M*A*R*D*Y*K*S 18:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

I hope you see now Hoopes, this is what happens when you give Mardyks what he wants. Serendipodous 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What happens? He's happy? If you don't have a personal vendetta against him, I don't know why you'd be opposed to that. The 2012 phenomenon article has cited many different fringe, counterculture, and pseudoscientific sources. The rationale that's been followed for including some and excluding others remains unclear to me. Hoopes (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You probably missed where he was spamming and insulting everybody, including those who agreed with him. Anyway. The issue of inclusion vs exclusion is mainly about "notability"; i.e. is this just one guy spouting off, or has his particular brand of idiocy actually had a wider impact? My auntie believes the World Trade Center was brought down by a nuclear bomb. Should I include her views on the relevant Wikipedia page? No, because her views have had no wider impact. I have always been of the opinion that regardless of who thought of what crazy idea when, Mardyks is not worthy of inclusion because his ideas have had no wider impact. Whatever impact they've had has been solely due to his own raging about being so hard done by. You might argue that is impact enough, but if that is the case then we've just told every crackpot on Earth that if they scream loud and long enough they'll eventually be taken seriously. If that's the world you want to live in, fine. Serendipodous 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
On what grounds are you claiming that Mardyks' ideas "have had no wider impact"? The Wikipedia article on the 2012 phenomenon makes it clear that the early 1990s were a critical period for the growth and spread of specific ideas about 2012, most of which have a basis in popular astrology (not in Maya studies). Mardyks was an acquaintance of José Argüelles and participated in the 1987 Harmonic Convergence. Prominent 2012 phenomenon proponent John Major Jenkins, who was presumably a reader of The Mountain Astrologer (he later published his own articles about 2012 in that magazine), cites Mardyks' 1991 article in his own influential book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. Given the notability of The Mountain Astrologer in the area of astrology, why do you think Mardyks' article had little impact? The reality is that many of the New Age themes he discussed in that article have become amplified enormously in the subsequent 1500+ books, films, websites, and so forth that discuss the significance of 2012. Would it be helpful for me to include some citations to Mardyks' 1991 article in other publications? Or would that constitute "original research"? Hoopes (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
From what I can tell, Mardyks was the first to publish on 2012 and the "galactic alignment" in The Mountain Astrologer. A visit to that magazine's website The Mountain Astrologer and especially the index of previous articles TMA Article Index will reveal that many of the authors contributing to that magazine have subsequently played a significant role in promoting 2012 lore. If anything, the role of this publication and of the professional astrology community in promoting the 2012 phenomenon has been underrepresented. This is not an issue of giving voice to a crank but of correctly identifying the significant role of popular astrology with respect to this topic. Hoopes (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you point to me any direct link between the current galactic alignment concept and Raymond Mardyks? How many websites, scholarly papers, New Age publications or any similar materials credit Mardyks for bringing the galactic alignment to world attention? I'm not talking about citations. I mean direct attributions. I can find none. John Major Jenkins has openly stated that he never knew of Mardyks's work before publishing his idea, and yes he may be lying, but unless we can find direct evidence to the contrary (other than both having published articles in The Mountain Astrologer, which is, as you say, a very widely read and notable astrological publication) to give such credit to Mardyks constitutes original research. Serendipodous 20:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
In his online article Response to Mardyks, John Major Jenkins says, "I first became aware of Mardyks' work when an article of his appeared in the same issue of Mountain Astrologer that my article "The How and Why of the Mayan End-Date in 2012 A.D." appeared (December 1994 issue)." This may be so, but Mardyks' earlier work, including both his contribution to the issue of Meditation Magazine that appeared around the time of the Harmonic Convergence in 1987 and his 1991 article in The Mountain Astrologer, were probably known to many in the New Age and astrology milieus within which Jenkins was operating. Jenkins also writes, "In Appendix 1 of my book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, I trace my encounter with the Galactic Alignment concept and mention other researchers who have explored the concept. Mardyks is mentioned." I think it's fair to say that the community in which this information circulates is not one that's known for scholarly practice, including direct attributions. I can't prove it, but I suspect the phenomenon of cryptomnesia is relevant. That is, of people imagining a thought is new when it's actually something they heard or read about somewhere without knowing specifically where (a problem exacerbated in the context of co-consumption of knowledge and cannabis, which specifically affects short-term memory). Is it original research just to note that Mardyks made a specific statement about the "galactic alignment" and 2012 in the pages of The Mountain Astrologer, a notable astrological publication, prior to any mention of the subject by Jenkins? All that's being credited is the fact that he actually published what he published when he published it. I don't think there's any implication at all that he brought "the galactic alignment" (as if there was just one or even a "correct" one) to "world attention," but it seems to be an undeniable fact that he did bring the issue of a "galactic alignment" to the attention of both the "Harmonic Convergence" community (if we can assume that's meaningful) and the English-speaking astrological community. Any arbitration of which--if any--"galactic alighment" is the "real" or "significant" one, and especially any assertion about the specifics of "the current galactic alignment concept," seem to me to be what's actually in the realm of original research. Hoopes (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
But what makes Mardyks more worthy of mention than any other pre-Jenkins appearance of the galactic alignment? Serendipodous 07:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
One principal quality that in academia and especially in history counts for a lot: Priority. The brief, oblique, and imprecise mentions in The Invisible Landscape (1975) and The Mayan Factor (1987) are not as clear as what Mardyks published in The Mountain Astrologer in 1991. Chagrined as this may make some feel, it seems likely that it was Mardyks who coined the phrase "galactic alignment" in the first place. Another is his documented direct influence (an as-yet undocumented indirect influence also seems likely) on key writers such as John Major Jenkins. Hoopes (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
That may be true, but it's not Wikipedia's job to make such assumptions. Academics are free to do so, and when they do, Wikipedia is free to quote them. But Wikipedia isn't an academic journal; it has no innate authority. It cannot make any claims; only report the claims of others. Serendipodous 21:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand. However, Wikipedia does report facts and facts about quotes from notable publications and the dates when they were published do not involve making any assumptions at all. Hoopes (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO SERENDIPODOUS/OUS: I definately wouldn't say what's happening here makes me HAPPY, POD. A tiny, little bit of satisfaction, maybe. Remember from the Sante Fe Reporter article that the goal was "to machete a path through the 2012 stupidity". I do find it rather interesting that the MARDYKS discussion is now longer than the source article itself. It seems my NOTABILITY is on the rise. :) I am now counting to see how many minutes it takes for you to "CENSOR" this comment. 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... Maybe you should just breathe and try another approach, like TRUSTING! Trick or treat! *M* 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.77.234 (talk)

User:EvanyEmlins/Gosford Glyphs

Is this abandoned? See the discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll check. Hoopes (talk)

Read your article in the Fortean Times

Nice call out to Lovecraft. Don't know if it could be included in the article, but it is interesting to speculate that he may have been the originator of the "ancient aliens" meme. Serendipodous 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks! As a matter of fact, Jason Colavito has already written several articles and books that trace the "ancient aliens" meme to Lovecraft. I especially like his book The Cult of Alien Gods: H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture (Prometheus Books, 2005). Check out his blog at http://www.jasoncolavito.com Hoopes (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoopes, I need you

User:Mercy11 is demanding something you wrote in 2012 phenomenon be cited. I tried using one of your cited texts but she's demanding line and word. So please can you get her off my back? Serendipodous 16:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. What information do you need? Hoopes (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me know if the additional references fixed the problem. I don't know why specific page numbers are needed when the topic at hand is basically the subject of the entire article. Hoopes (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I thought things were OK before :) But that should keep her happy. I hope. Thanks :) Serendipodous 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoopes/Archive_2&oldid=1047353987"