EgoSanus

Necronomicon article

No matter how many times you re-submit them, your additions to the Necronomicon article qualify as unsubstantiated original research at best and outright inaccurate information at worst until you provide actual citations to back them up. Furthermore, vandalizing the page to complain about the removal of your material is not constructive - please use the page's discussion page if you would like to contest the information's removal. Remember, all unsourced material may be contested and removed. The requirement that people back up their assertions is one of the things that helps make Wikipedia at least a bit more reliable than it otherwise would be. That all aside, please consider this your final warning. Any further textual tantrums on the page itself will result in a report to AIV. - Vianello (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The current setup of your section is much more neutral. While it still badly needs some source citations (I don't actually recall any of Lovecraft's works discussing any of this at all), this is still probably a step in a better direction. Thank you for your continued efforts. - Vianello (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working on sourcing your edits, but what we're looking for are sources that talk about Iram and the Garden of Eden in relation to the Necronomicon, as well as clearer details about which version of the work they appear in. Are they mentioned in Lovecraft's original stories, or in the later books by other authors? If your point boils down to "a version of this work mentions The Garden of Eden and Iram of the Pillars", then perhaps those could simply be mentioned in passing in the "fictional history" section. --McGeddon (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised that you've copy-and-pasted whole paragraphs of text from Garden of Eden and Iram of the Pillars. There's no need to do this; we can just link to those articles - Iram is in fact already linked to, in the "fictional history" section. Perhaps you could add the Garden of Eden to the paragraph that talks about Alhazred visiting various sites? --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that your work was in vain, but there really wasn't any need to copy and paste paragraphs from one article to another - there was already one link in the correct place, and you just needed to add Garden of Eden.

If you've genuinely found some ground-breaking source material that shows the Necronomicon to be partially truthful, then you're welcome to document that source in the article, but the fact that the Necronomicon mentions two well-known mythical sites, and some modern archaeologists think those sites may have existed, does absolutely nothing to further the hypothesis that the Necronomicon may have been real. --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Necronomicon is a well-documented but fictional book. If a fictional book mentions a well-known mythical site and an archaeologist finds that that site was real, that doesn't make the book real. If we had an archaeologist unearthing R'lyeh, then we'd be onto something amazing, but Lovecraft didn't invent Iram, he took it from pre-existing mythology, which may now have some basis in fact. --McGeddon (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If Lovecraft was the first person to write in detail about how Iram fell, and how to find it, and was later proven to be correct, than that's certainly of interest. However, we need to find a reliable source (such as a newspaper or academic paper) that writes about it - we can't document it ourselves based on his novels and the NASA dig, as that would be synthesis. Have you got anything? --McGeddon (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The big unsourced thing is whether or not Lovecraft accurately predicted the location and fate of Iram, and whether it matches the findings of the 1992 excavation. It's not enough to point to a page in a story; we should try to find a journalist or academic who's written about it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you yelling at me on my talk page because McGeddon deleted information, for reasons you had already, on that same talk page, agreed with? Nobody "controls" Wikipedia anyway. As the bottom of every edit page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... do not submit it." You have not addressed the concerns raised over your additions, but have instead cried "censorship" and "harassment" over the discussion thereof. Your work is removed not because someone "disagrees with" or "does not understand" it, but because you have failed to demonstrate how it is relevant or even provable in the context of the article. The section regarding Irem is already covered, and you have not clarified what the Garden of Eden has to do with Alhazred, the Necronomicon, or any component of Lovecraft's body of work. Nor has the apparent claim Lovecraft predicted where Irem would be found in any way supported in your claims. If you cannot cope with these factors of this site, your voiced decision (for the third time, I think) to leave is probably wise, for your own peace of mind. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate forum for the voicing of any unsubstantiated idea or opinion brough to the table by any of its users, and if you expect it to function as one, you will inevitably be frustrated further. - Vianello (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)