Did Arb Doug Weller (lie about being) an Archaeologist? No.

[Triptych]

There's this Examiner article by Richard Thornton (one among us?) that says current arbitrator Doug Weller, a "self-appointed Wikipedia editor in rural England," came into conflict with the History Channel's Scott Wolter, who demanded that his (Wolter's) Wikipedia article be deleted because dirtbag Wikipedia editors were controlling it over Wolter's objections and trying to inform Scott Wolter what Scott Wolter is about.

Wikipedia provides little information on Doug Weller other than that he has been designated a “purple gatekeeper.” Weller has no professional qualifications in geology. Until 2006 he claimed to be an archaeologist, but withdrew that claim when exposed. Surprisingly, Weller has also been editing Wikipedia articles about the history of the Southeastern United States.

I thought I might spare myself having to spend an half hour or much more probing Weller's edits, and give us some okay discussion besides, by asking if anybody knows anything about this. Did Weller find himself in an Essjay situation by falsely portraying his credentials?

Here's the Examiner article: http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-at-wikipedia.

[iii]

I thought I might spare myself having to spend an half hour or much more probing Weller's edits, and give us some okay discussion besides, by asking if anybody knows anything about this. Did Weller find himself in an Essjay situation by falsely portraying his credentials?

Here's the Examiner article: http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-at-wikipedia.

Dougweller (T-C-L) is an active opponent of "alternate history" champions that revel in the more obscure corners of Wikipedia. If he is guilty of misrepresenting himself as an archaeologist on Wikipedia until 2006, it was not with his current account.

Otherwise, the conspiracy theorist claimant, Richard Thornton, appears to me to be quite unhinged.

[tarantino]

I thought I might spare myself having to spend an half hour or much more probing Weller's edits, and give us some okay discussion besides, by asking if anybody knows anything about this. Did Weller find himself in an Essjay situation by falsely portraying his credentials?

Here's the Examiner article: http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-at-wikipedia.

Dougweller (T-C-L) is an active opponent of "alternate history" champions that revel in the more obscure corners of Wikipedia. If he is guilty of misrepresenting himself as an archaeologist on Wikipedia until 2006, it was not with his current account.

Otherwise, the conspiracy theorist claimant, Richard Thornton, appears to me to be quite unhinged.

Doug was a moderator for sci.archaeology.moderated. I looked at many of his posts a while back, and I have never seen him claim to have a degree in archaeology or geology. In the RFD for the group in 1996, he calls himself an amateur.

[SarekOfVulcan]

I point and laugh at archaeologists.

[Vigilant]

I point and laugh at archaeologists.

Oliver Keyes doesn't like you.

[JCM]

I read somewhere that Doug said that he had done some amateur archaeology in the Southern US, where he grew up. And he is one of the leaders in the fight against giving fringe and/or minority and/or woo archaeological views undue weight in our content. I actually didn't know just how much of that there is until I saw one of the few encyclopedias devoted to "pseudoscience" is specifically devoted to archaeological pseudoscience, the "Encyclopedia of dubious archaeology: from Atlantis to the Walam Olum'.

[Triptych]

Otherwise, the conspiracy theorist claimant, Richard Thornton, appears to me to be quite unhinged.

Yeah, okay, I had to read it until several paragraphs down, but you're right Thornton is unhinged.

[Poetlister]

Surprisingly, Weller has also been editing Wikipedia articles about the history of the Southeastern United States.

Why is that surprising if he grew up there? Or is it that Thornton didn't know that, and is just firing off blindly in all directions? Just because someone is an arb doesn't mean that he's a fraud!

[Hex]

Betteridge's law of headlines (T-H-L)

[Triptych]

I looked a bit more at it and no Doug Weller doesn't seem to have ever said he was other than an amateur archaeologist. The friction he runs into, and this is visible in many online places, is that he is a self-appointed and as he admits uncredentialed policeman and deleter of whatever he views as fringe archaeology. So the dissonance there arises from the question "if you don't have any credentials other than taking a %$^ing undergrad course or two, where do you get off labeling others as fringe theorists and whackos and deleting their work?" Including it seems, where they have relevant degrees, and Weller doesn't (Scott Wolter).

What we're seeing here of course is that Weller's authority at debunking fringe archaeology arises from his position as administrator and arbitrator at Wikipedia, where he has the power if not the knowledge to wipe out whatever he disbelieves.

[JCM]

I looked a bit more at it and no Doug Weller doesn't seem to have ever said he was other than an amateur archaeologist. The friction he runs into, and this is visible in many online places, is that he is a self-appointed and as he admits uncredentialed policeman and deleter of whatever he views as fringe archaeology. So the dissonance there arises from the question "if you don't have any credentials other than taking a %$^ing undergrad course or two, where do you get off labeling others as fringe theorists and whackos and deleting their work?" Including it seems, where they have relevant degrees, and Weller doesn't (Scott Wolter).

What we're seeing here of course is that Weller's authority at debunking fringe archaeology arises from his position as administrator and arbitrator at Wikipedia, where he has the power if not the knowledge to wipe out whatever he disbelieves.

OK, just curious, Richard Thornton is listed in the first link iii provided above as an "architect and city planner" and the book he links to in the second link is about the archaeology of the state of Georgia and how he finds evidence from one location to indicate the presence of the Maya there. Personally, I myself am less than sure that a professional in architecture and city planning is necessarily any more qualified for discussing archaeology than Doug, or apparently the others who don't give that idea much credit. Granted, though, the examiner.com link iii provided as the second one isn't itself necessarily a real reliable source either.

[tarantino]

I thought I might spare myself having to spend an half hour or much more probing Weller's edits, and give us some okay discussion besides, by asking if anybody knows anything about this. Did Weller find himself in an Essjay situation by falsely portraying his credentials?

Here's the Examiner article: http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-at-wikipedia.

Dougweller (T-C-L) is an active opponent of "alternate history" champions that revel in the more obscure corners of Wikipedia. If he is guilty of misrepresenting himself as an archaeologist on Wikipedia until 2006, it was not with his current account.

Otherwise, the conspiracy theorist claimant, Richard Thornton, appears to me to be quite unhinged.

A reader writes, "this proposed Maya-Georgia connection is not nearly as far-fetched as it's being treated". See "Chitimacha: a Mesoamerican language in the Lower Mississippi Valley."

[Triptych]

OK, just curious, Richard Thornton is listed in the first link iii provided above as an "architect and city planner" and the book he links to in the second link is about the archaeology of the state of Georgia and how he finds evidence from one location to indicate the presence of the Maya there. Personally, I myself am less than sure that a professional in architecture and city planning is necessarily any more qualified for discussing archaeology than Doug, or apparently the others who don't give that idea much credit. Granted, though, the examiner.com link iii provided as the second one isn't itself necessarily a real reliable source either.

Dunno about Thornton who is quite suspect by the paranoid nature of the middle of his other article that Iii linked, but Wolter host of "Unearthing America" has a geology degree from Univ. Minnesota, Duluth.

[JCM]

OK, just curious, Richard Thornton is listed in the first link iii provided above as an "architect and city planner" and the book he links to in the second link is about the archaeology of the state of Georgia and how he finds evidence from one location to indicate the presence of the Maya there. Personally, I myself am less than sure that a professional in architecture and city planning is necessarily any more qualified for discussing archaeology than Doug, or apparently the others who don't give that idea much credit. Granted, though, the examiner.com link iii provided as the second one isn't itself necessarily a real reliable source either.

Dunno about Thornton who is quite suspect by the paranoid nature of the middle of his other article that Iii linked, but Wolter host of "Unearthing America" has a geology degree from Univ. Minnesota, Duluth.

A good school, so far as I know. But some of the most "out there" fringe theorists I know of are people with relevant degrees who seek to capitalize on their presumptive expertise in promoting their own theories. James Tabor (T-H-L) comes to mind as someone whose book The Jesus Dynasty (T-H-L) seemingly based at least in part on the now basically discredited James ossuary (T-H-L) is an example of someone whose academic credentials are very good, but the credibility of his popular or sensationalist work is more or less counted as being virtually "dead on arrival" upon publication. iii or Casliber have said elsewhere something I will paraphrase as some of the worst POV pushers are people in the relevant fields who have staked their reputation, in a sense, on a certain belief which gets discredited or otherwise politely disregarded shortly after publication. Particularly in some fields like archaeology, where new things are found on a completely unpredictable basis, that happens a lot.

[Jim]

Betteridge's law of headlines (T-H-L)

Splendid. I particularly liked:

If the headline asks a question, try answering 'no'.
Is This the True Face of Britain's Young? (Sensible reader: No.)
Have We Found the Cure for AIDS? (No; or you wouldn't have put the question mark in.)
Does This Map Provide the Key for Peace? (Probably not.)
A headline with a question mark at the end means, in the vast majority of cases, that the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic. To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means 'don't bother reading this bit'.

credited to Andrew Marr (T-H-L), from 5 years earlier.

[iii]

OK, just curious, Richard Thornton is listed in the first link iii provided above as an "architect and city planner" and the book he links to in the second link is about the archaeology of the state of Georgia and how he finds evidence from one location to indicate the presence of the Maya there. Personally, I myself am less than sure that a professional in architecture and city planning is necessarily any more qualified for discussing archaeology than Doug, or apparently the others who don't give that idea much credit. Granted, though, the examiner.com link iii provided as the second one isn't itself necessarily a real reliable source either.

Dunno about Thornton who is quite suspect by the paranoid nature of the middle of his other article that Iii linked, but Wolter host of "Unearthing America" has a geology degree from Univ. Minnesota, Duluth.

A good school, so far as I know. But some of the most "out there" fringe theorists I know of are people with relevant degrees who seek to capitalize on their presumptive expertise in promoting their own theories. James Tabor (T-H-L) comes to mind as someone whose book The Jesus Dynasty (T-H-L) seemingly based at least in part on the now basically discredited James ossuary (T-H-L) is an example of someone whose academic credentials are very good, but the credibility of his popular or sensationalist work is more or less counted as being virtually "dead on arrival" upon publication. iii or Casliber have said elsewhere something I will paraphrase as some of the worst POV pushers are people in the relevant fields who have staked their reputation, in a sense, on a certain belief which gets discredited or otherwise politely disregarded shortly after publication. Particularly in some fields like archaeology, where new things are found on a completely unpredictable basis, that happens a lot.

An undergraduate degree in geology is not an inoculation from falling down rabbit holes. Wolter's fame rests on his promotion of ideas that are not just far-fetched, but are the latest in a long line of sensationalized "alternate history" of the sort that gets fiction confused with fact while playing into nationalistic or religious fervors (for a smattering of examples, see British Israelism (T-H-L), Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories (T-H-L), or Beliefs and theology of the Nation of Islam (T-H-L)). Scott Wolter is not exactly happy about being identified as such:

At the end of day, all this banter about scholarly degrees, peer review, academic journals, and fraudulent Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a smokescreen by skeptics and debunkers who offer no meaningful contributions, and try to control and cloud the discussion with misleading and mean-spirited deception and nonsense. The bottom line is the soft-science academic “consensus of opinion” approach to history where there is little to no accountability has failed to find the truth. It’s long past time we put aside the “Myth of Columbus” and defer to the facts. Instead of the court of academic opinion, the factual evidence concerning our history should be considered in a court of law under oath by professionals who understand proper scientific method, ethical practices, and most importantly, accountability.

This argument is achingly similar to the ones made by Rupert Sheldrake, creationists, perpetual motion enthusiasts,....

[EricBarbour]

This argument is achingly similar to the ones made by Rupert Sheldrake, creationists, perpetual motion enthusiasts,....

Granted, but ultimately it just means that both Weller and Wolter are assholes....and whenever two flaming assholes clash over Wikipedia content, bad things ensue.

[iii]

This argument is achingly similar to the ones made by Rupert Sheldrake, creationists, perpetual motion enthusiasts,....

Granted, but ultimately it just means that both Weller and Wolter are assholes....and whenever two flaming assholes clash over Wikipedia content, bad things ensue.

I get the "plague on both your houses" sentiment, but I would much rather have Weller in control of that fiefdom rather than Wolter just as I would much rather have William M. Connelley in control of the global warming fiefdom instead of, say, Anthony Watts. I freely admit that I have this preference in order to see my preferred "House POV' promoted at Wikipedia.

[Ming]

This argument is achingly similar to the ones made by Rupert Sheldrake, creationists, perpetual motion enthusiasts,....

Granted, but ultimately it just means that both Weller and Wolter are assholes.

Says a guy flipping the green bird. Ming is failing to see what is wrong with trying to keep the "alternative" archaeology in check.

[EricBarbour]

I get the "plague on both your houses" sentiment, but I would much rather have Weller in control of that fiefdom rather than Wolter just as I would much rather have William M. Connelley in control of the global warming fiefdom instead of, say, Anthony Watts. I freely admit that I have this preference in order to see my preferred "House POV' promoted at Wikipedia.

Okay, and just to remind me: what were the length and conditions of your ban?.....

[iii]

I get the "plague on both your houses" sentiment, but I would much rather have Weller in control of that fiefdom rather than Wolter just as I would much rather have William M. Connelley in control of the global warming fiefdom instead of, say, Anthony Watts. I freely admit that I have this preference in order to see my preferred "House POV' promoted at Wikipedia.

Okay, and just to remind me: what were the length and conditions of your ban?.....

Which one? Are you talking about the Sandstein one? The ArbCom one? The Elonka one?

[Cla68]

What's wrong with archeologists or revisionist historians promoting alternative narratives about cultural or natural history? I thought academia was supposed to promote the free exchange and congenial debate of ideas.

I have this quote by Theodor Adorno at the top of my user talk page for a reason:

Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality.

The editors and admins in WP who try to suppress ideas that are contrary to the prevailing Western mainstream school of thought, or what they perceive is the mainstream view, are, IMO, authoritarian, insecure personalities who can't handle it when things aren't black and white. So, they use WP to try to force their authoritarian view on the rest of the world in order to try to make themselves feel more in control.

[lilburne]

What's wrong with archeologists or revisionist historians promoting alternative narratives about cultural or natural history? I thought academia was supposed to promote the free exchange and congenial debate of ideas.

At some point you end up with collected wisdom of David Icke and David Irving, littering as many articles as possible.

[iii]

What's wrong with archeologists or revisionist historians promoting alternative narratives about cultural or natural history? I thought academia was supposed to promote the free exchange and congenial debate of ideas.

At some point you end up with collected wisdom of David Icke and David Irving, littering as many articles as possible.

Precisely. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (apparently accidentally) proposed to remove the search for truth from the mission statement for the University of Wisconsin. "Free exchange and congenial debate" is an academic ideal inasmuch as it is part of this search for truth. It's not a suicide pact for ideas. Some ideas will be shown to be wrong and some will be shown to be right.

[JCM]

What's wrong with archeologists or revisionist historians promoting alternative narratives about cultural or natural history? I thought academia was supposed to promote the free exchange and congenial debate of ideas.

At some point you end up with collected wisdom of David Icke and David Irving, littering as many articles as possible.

Precisely. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (apparently accidentally) proposed to remove the search for truth from the mission statement for the University of Wisconsin. "Free exchange and congenial debate" is an academic ideal inasmuch as it is part of this search for truth. It's not a suicide pact for ideas. Some ideas will be shown to be wrong and some will be shown to be right.

And there will be an even broader range of ideas which are not necessarily conclusively shown to be right or wrong, but reasonably supported by the best current evidence and research and not so supported. There are some cases, like the Nicolas Notovitch (T-H-L) infancy gospel of Jesus, which may or may not be a "good idea" but are also ideas which rather clearly were made up by someone with no particular expertise or other claim to real "knowledge," inspired or otherwise, of a subject several hundred years after the fact. In cases like that, most reasonable people would say that a claim that someone made up like that, without even the apparent claim that his idea was in some way supernaturally inspired, is just what it apparently is, sensationalist, wildly speculative b.s. without a shred of evidence to support it. Such ideas are rarely given any real consideration except by the most committed of conspiracy theorists.

[Zoloft]

Edited title of topic.

[Triptych]

Edited title of topic.

Fine if you want the title that way, but I resist the idea that I insinuated anything. It was a straight question, not any rhetorical one, based on the Thornton article which directly asserted that Weller portrayed himself as an archaeologist until 2006, but then had to back off that assertion. I looked at the bio for Thornton and didn't see anything amiss. Later, Iii pointed to another Thornton article where he sounds thoroughly wacky in the middle, and I quickly agreed then that it called all of Thornton's statements into question. (For what it's worth I noticed that that second article is labeled by Thornton as containing humor, but that's a strange way to mix it in there if that's what that middle section really is.)

By the way the article closes directly quoting Weller, which would be a ballsy thing to manufacture out of air:

This columnist re-inserted the deleted paragraphs in the Bartow, Gordon and Murray County, GA Wikipedia articles from the original sources in the New Georgia Encyclopedia. Within two hours, the re-insertions had been deleted by a man named Doug Weller, with a UK email address. An email was sent to Weller stating that the re-inserted paragraphs were about National Historic Landmarks that were very important to the region’s history and that he was not qualified to edit articles on American or Native American history. Weller immediately emailed back, “If you attempt to change another article or submit another article without my approval, you will be permanently blocked from Wikipedia.”

I'm hope I'm not "insinuating" anything to say the arrogance of the quote is trademark bad admin arrogance, very believable, and it smelled legit to me.

[Zoloft]

Edited title of topic.

Fine if you want the title that way, but I resist the idea that I insinuated anything. It was a straight question, not any rhetorical one, based on the Thornton article which directly asserted that Weller portrayed himself as an archaeologist until 2006, but then had to back off that assertion. I looked at the bio for Thornton and didn't see anything amiss. Later, Iii pointed to another Thornton article where he sounds thoroughly wacky in the middle, and I quickly agreed then that it called all of Thornton's statements into question. (For what it's worth I noticed that that second article is labeled by Thornton as containing humor, but that's a strange way to mix it in there if that's what that middle section really is.)

By the way the article closes directly quoting Weller, which would be a ballsy thing to manufacture out of air:

This columnist re-inserted the deleted paragraphs in the Bartow, Gordon and Murray County, GA Wikipedia articles from the original sources in the New Georgia Encyclopedia. Within two hours, the re-insertions had been deleted by a man named Doug Weller, with a UK email address. An email was sent to Weller stating that the re-inserted paragraphs were about National Historic Landmarks that were very important to the region’s history and that he was not qualified to edit articles on American or Native American history. Weller immediately emailed back, “If you attempt to change another article or submit another article without my approval, you will be permanently blocked from Wikipedia.”

I'm hope I'm not "insinuating" anything to say the arrogance of the quote is trademark bad admin arrogance, very believable, and it smelled legit to me.

I am altering the 'revised by' note. Pray I don't alter it any further.

[Ming]

The thing is, from what Ming can see not a single word of what Thorton says may be true. One can, after all, look at the history of Bartow County, Georgia (T-H-L). It was created by Ram-Man (T-C-L), who gives his name on his user page. That version reads like the standard generated-from-a-statistical-summary WP starter article on a county or town, and contains no historical information whatsoever. It's also apparently two years older than the original NGE entry; wayback doesn't go that far back on that page, but there is no real resemblance between the NGE and WP articles at any stage Ming has checked so far. There is also no deletion of material as he describes anywhere in 2012, and there's no editing of any of the three articles by dougweller.

A lot of the mound articles were worked on by Heironymous Rowe (T-C-L), who reverted a chunk out of the Murray County article in January 2013. If this is a sock of Weller, then he spends a lot of time talking to himself. And... aha. It appears that Thorton is probably Talamachusee (T-C-L), based upon this edit comment. And perhaps it is this edit that has Thorton so burned up about Weller.

[Poetlister]

but there is no real resemblance between the NGE and WP articles at any stage I've checked so far.

Poetlister notes that Ming is slipping.

[thekohser]

but there is no real resemblance between the NGE and WP articles at any stage I've checked so far.

Poetlister notes that Ming is slipping.

I knew it would happen one day, but I am saddened.

[Triptych]

The thing is, from what Ming can see not a single word of what Thorton says may be true. One can, after all, look at the history of Bartow County, Georgia (T-H-L). It was created by Ram-Man (T-C-L), who gives his name on his user page. That version reads like the standard generated-from-a-statistical-summary WP starter article on a county or town, and contains no historical information whatsoever. It's also apparently two years older than the original NGE entry; wayback doesn't go that far back on that page, but there is no real resemblance between the NGE and WP articles at any stage Ming has checked so far. There is also no deletion of material as he describes anywhere in 2012, and there's no editing of any of the three articles by dougweller.

A lot of the mound articles were worked on by Heironymous Rowe (T-C-L), who reverted a chunk out of the Murray County article in January 2013. If this is a sock of Weller, then he spends a lot of time talking to himself. And... aha. It appears that Thorton is probably Talamachusee (T-C-L), based upon this edit comment. And perhaps it is this edit that has Thorton so burned up about Weller.

I don't see the need to say "not a single word Thornton says may be true." Here's a diff that may represent part of the deleting of museums he complains about in the Examiner article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =462178119. The time-frame is different from what he says, but not everyone can parse the various Wikipedia edit histories as easily as we do. You're incorrect I think that Thornton is editor Talamachusee. That edit you link there appears to me to be the scholar that complained he was misquoted in Thornton's book showing up to say "hey it is just Creek Indian historians, not me that say this." Of course Talamachusee is outdone by Weller who casts Thornton as unreliable and wipes it out completely. And then or at another point apparently responded to Thornton's emailed complaints by threatening to permablock.

There is an ugly tone to the dismissive criticisms of Creek Indian Thornton sufficient to make me scratch my head and wonder if there's a racial aspect to it. He does list some impressive stuff in his bio like "first recipent of the Barrett Fellowship, which enabled him to spend several months in Mesoamerica studing its pre-European civilizations under the auspices of the Museo Nacional de Antropologia in Mexico City." I get the sense that some of those deriding him as crank are reacting in an uncalled for way to trash his theory that Mayan migrants may have made it to Georgia and been influential in the curious five-sided terraced hill. Can't help thinking that there's a pale boys club of mainstream academics (and amateurs) reacting a little bit too viciously to his ideas.

[JCM]

The thing is, from what Ming can see not a single word of what Thorton says may be true. One can, after all, look at the history of Bartow County, Georgia (T-H-L). It was created by Ram-Man (T-C-L), who gives his name on his user page. That version reads like the standard generated-from-a-statistical-summary WP starter article on a county or town, and contains no historical information whatsoever. It's also apparently two years older than the original NGE entry; wayback doesn't go that far back on that page, but there is no real resemblance between the NGE and WP articles at any stage Ming has checked so far. There is also no deletion of material as he describes anywhere in 2012, and there's no editing of any of the three articles by dougweller.

A lot of the mound articles were worked on by Heironymous Rowe (T-C-L), who reverted a chunk out of the Murray County article in January 2013. If this is a sock of Weller, then he spends a lot of time talking to himself. And... aha. It appears that Thorton is probably Talamachusee (T-C-L), based upon this edit comment. And perhaps it is this edit that has Thorton so burned up about Weller.

I don't see the need to say "not a single word Thornton says may be true." Here's a diff that may represent part of the deleting of museums he complains about in the Examiner article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =462178119. The time-frame is different from what he says, but not everyone can parse the various Wikipedia edit histories as easily as we do. You're incorrect I think that Thornton is editor Talamachusee. That edit you link there appears to me to be the scholar that complained he was misquoted in Thornton's book showing up to say "hey it is just Creek Indian historians, not me that say this." Of course Talamachusee is outdone by Weller who casts Thornton as unreliable and wipes it out completely. And then or at another point apparently responded to Thornton's emailed complaints by threatening to permablock.

There is an ugly tone to the dismissive criticisms of Creek Indian Thornton sufficient to make me scratch my head and wonder if there's a racial aspect to it. He does list some impressive stuff in his bio like "first recipent of the Barrett Fellowship, which enabled him to spend several months in Mesoamerica studing its pre-European civilizations under the auspices of the Museo Nacional de Antropologia in Mexico City." I get the sense that some of those deriding him as crank are reacting in an uncalled for way to trash his theory that Mayan migrants may have made it to Georgia and been influential in the curious five-sided terraced hill. Can't help thinking that there's a pale boys club of mainstream academics (and amateurs) reacting a little bit too viciously to his ideas.

I think you might mean "Maya migrants did make it to Georgia and were influential in the..."

FWIW, I don' think anyone disagrees that the Mayas were in North America. I live less than half an hour from Cahokia (T-H-L), which as an old tribal location traded which has demonstrable trading ties to peoples in modern Mexico and Canada, including either the Mayas or Aztecs (I forget the timing). And there is some fairly solid evidence of Arctic cultures trading with each other, so it probably wouldn't be that much of a surprise to see an item or two ultimately from Russia or Sakhalin there either. But it seems that the claims are a bit more than that the Maya "might" have done something, but that they in fact "did" do it. The evidence for this seems to be less than sufficient.

Also, unfortunately, in general, using ancient history as a means of trying to support some dubious or problematic beliefs of the current day is and has been for centuries regularly tried. I think some of the ethnic groups in Ethiopia are still trying to use their alleged ties to Solomon in the Kebra Nagast to lord it over the Oromo, who they call the Galla people or "Gallas," a word which translates as "slaves." Unfortunately, such efforts often start with von Danikenesque "it might be true" or "it needs to be investigated" arguments, which while not unreasonable in some cases ignore the fact that it has been investiaged and the evidence found insufficient to support the contention.

[Ming]

I don't see the need to say "not a single word Thornton says may be true." Here's a diff that may represent part of the deleting of museums he complains about in the Examiner article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =462178119. The time-frame is different from what he says, but not everyone can parse the various Wikipedia edit histories as easily as we do. You're incorrect I think that Thornton is editor Talamachusee. That edit you link there appears to me to be the scholar that complained he was misquoted in Thornton's book showing up to say "hey it is just Creek Indian historians, not me that say this." Of course Talamachusee is outdone by Weller who casts Thornton as unreliable and wipes it out completely. And then or at another point apparently responded to Thornton's emailed complaints by threatening to permablock.

Ming wishes to point out that it is the accuracy of Thorton's depiction that was questioned. It is irrelevant whether he misremembered what happened, or whether he didn't understand it; either way, what actually happened was that a bunch of people, none of them dougweller, took out material from these county articles. Ming does not see how to somehow take Thornton's account at some sort of face value when the history of the articles shows that it didn't happen as he states it. What Ming sees instead is that Thornton is also an amateur, or else he could refer to his published-in-reputable-journals works. He thus ran up against other amateurs who are reasonably aware of a field in which there is a lot of bad amateur work.

There is an ugly tone to the dismissive criticisms of Creek Indian Thornton sufficient to make me scratch my head and wonder if there's a racial aspect to it. He does list some impressive stuff in his bio like "first recipent of the Barrett Fellowship, which enabled him to spend several months in Mesoamerica studing its pre-European civilizations under the auspices of the Museo Nacional de Antropologia in Mexico City." I get the sense that some of those deriding him as crank are reacting in an uncalled for way to trash his theory that Mayan migrants may have made it to Georgia and been influential in the curious five-sided terraced hill. Can't help thinking that there's a pale boys club of mainstream academics (and amateurs) reacting a little bit too viciously to his ideas.

If he even is what he claims. There are lots of "Barrett Fellowships", and every time his name is linked with the phrase it traces right back to him claiming to be a recipient.

[Vigilant]

Son,

Here's that same mistake being made over here.

Big boy pants.

[JCM]

I just noticed something. This guy is a guest on the first real episode of America Unearthed (T-H-L), Scott Wolter's ridiculous series about the "alternative" (by which we should read dubiously supported and sometimes flat out ridiculous) history of the Americas. For basic credibility, his being the guest on that show pretty much puts him on a par with the old In Search of... (TV series) (T-H-L) or for that matter the featured guests on Coast to Coast AM (T-H-L). Honestly, being a hero to programs like those could be not unreasonably seen as being a better indicator of someone being nutzoid than any statements from real professionals in the field to that effect would be.

[Triptych]

Son, Here's that same mistake being made over here. Big boy pants.

I hereby apologize to Doug Weller for not duly investigating Mr. Thornton's allegation that he had misrepresented himself as a professional archaeologist before repeating that allegation as possibility here at Wikipediocracy. The act of misrepresenting one's credentials is an awful thing to do indeed, and I should not have approached that so lightly. While I did not directly allege that myself, it is nonetheless a serious mistake to non-critically refer to such claims without casting a skeptical eye on them. It risks being rumor-mongering. I will endeavor to more careful in the future and not do it to anyone else.

I don't have Weller's email but anyone is welcome to send this to him. As a public record where I made the statement, here it is.

[JCM]

Son, Here's that same mistake being made over here. Big boy pants.

I hereby apologize to Doug Weller for not duly investigating Mr. Thornton's allegation that he had misrepresented himself as a professional archaeologist before repeating that allegation as possibility here at Wikipediocracy. The act of misrepresenting one's credentials is an awful thing to do indeed, and I should not have approached that so lightly. While I did not directly allege that myself, it is nonetheless a serious mistake to non-critically refer to such claims without casting a skeptical eye on them. It risks being rumor-mongering. I will endeavor to more careful in the future and not do it to anyone else.

I don't have Weller's email but anyone is welcome to send this to him. As a public record where I made the statement, here it is.

No adult is immune to making mistakes, but not all adults have the character to acknowledge that they have made or might have made one, and I salute you for having the courage to do so.

Also, FWIW, I guess the only caveat I might add, having myself been involved in some such controversies regarding academics whose views on subjects in their fields are "out there" by the standards of pretty much everyone but themselves, I think it's worth noting that even more important to the professional qualifications of editors are the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, specifically FRINGE and WEIGHT. Speaking strictly for myself, as someone who isn't anything remotely like an expert on Christianity but has access to good sources on the topic, even clear non-experts can find the published reliable sources and what they say on topics, particularly including well-received reference works on topics. When such reference works are new enough and well-regarded enough to be likely to reflect current academic consensus on a topic, things they do and don't say, whether we as individuals disagree or not, are probably better indicators of our content than the degrees or lack of same of published experts. Luckily, or unluckily, the sheer number of reference works on religion, including Christianity, is overwhelming. There isn't quite so much attention to or coverage of pseudoscience and pseudohistory, so that field is a bit more problematic.

[Anthonyhcole]

I hereby apologize to Doug Weller for not duly investigating Mr. Thornton's allegation that he had misrepresented himself as a professional archaeologist before repeating that allegation as possibility here at Wikipediocracy. The act of misrepresenting one's credentials is an awful thing to do indeed, and I should not have approached that so lightly. While I did not directly allege that myself, it is nonetheless a serious mistake to non-critically refer to such claims without casting a skeptical eye on them. It risks being rumor-mongering. I will endeavor to more careful in the future and not do it to anyone else.

This could be put directly under the opening post of this thread.

[Zoloft]

I thought I'd locked this damned topic.
Locking it now.