User talk:Tuckerresearch/Talk Archive 2011

Diverger Press

Diverger Press has only published two books, guess the author of both? Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! TuckerResearch (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Derivative Songs

Re Faded Love discussion. Received message @ My talk page, w/ another claim re Nellie Gray. Manipulating a melody is often fair game. Listen toBobby McFerrin's Don't Worry Be Happy, and then listen to Grofe's On the Trail. Same chords and same shape melody, but I'd vote for no plagiarism. Avalon's royalties still accrue to Puccini's inheritors, and after listening I concur w/ the court. I'd vote for plagiarism onFaded Love & not San Antonio Rose, and btw Doc Watson intimated that Bob Wills stole THAT idea fr/ Eldon Shamblin. Cheers!Tapered (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: The Custom House Conspiracy

Hello Tuckerresearch, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The Custom House Conspiracy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review theCriteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan_Talk^{Contributions} 12:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't meet notability guidelines and is some guy's self-published book that he personally created the page for. It should be removed for those reasons, I just tagged it with speedy deletion because I believed it was promotional. The other tags were put up in December. How can we get the page deleted? I don't mind the book being cited somewhere, or in a bibliography (even if it is rather sketchy), but it doesn't deserve its own page. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not the proper venue for the deletion of an article of questionable notability. You should nominate it for deletion atAfD instead. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:The Grand Theatre, Volume Two.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Grand Theatre, Volume Two.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Herman Melville bibliography peer review

I've noticed and appreciated the work you've done lately on the article. I've requested a peer review and wonder if you might offer up some feedback. Would love to work with you on the article to get it up to FL. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

David Rohl pseudohistorian

No one has tagged David Rohl as a pseudohistorian because he is simply being ignored. Mainstream Egyptologists are ignoring Rohl. Work it out. If you are interested in mainstream Egyptology, ignore Rohl. Lung salad (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tag it pseudohistory, if you have a source, but pseudohistorian is a made up term. I don't understand what you mean by "work it out," although it sounds rather snotty. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, I agree with your opinion that "pseudohistorian" shouldn't be used. But you need to recognize that this entire thing is a reaction to the unacceptable behaviour of the people touting David Rohl on Wikipedia. David Rohl's theories are unnotable in any academic sense. They made for some television shows, and they appealed to some confused conspiracy theorists and radical religionists. That's it. The real problem is that the entire coverage of David Rohl is off, and should really be WP:TNTed. Adding "pseuodhistorian" isn't the solution, but it is an extremely mild action compared to what would be the solution, i.e. clamping down on the entire pseudo-scholarly activity in this field and radically cleaning up the article to reflect reality.

As soon as you accept that this is the underlying problem, it will be very easy to fix the "pseudohistorian" issue. --dab(𒁳) 10:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dab, here is where we disagree. I don't think it is WP:UNDUE to discuss conspiracy theories and alternative history and dreck on the pages where they belong, following the principle that "Wikipedia isn't paper." Somebody might want to turn to Wikipedia for information on Rohl's New Chronology. For whatever reason. Same with Von Daniken, Velikovsky, JFK conspiracy theories, speculation about where Christopher Columbus was born (it was Genoa, by the way, but you still have Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which is full of bad history, but I still think the page should exist, and I wrote a whole chapter of my dissertation on Columbus). So, here is where we respectfully disagree. Let everyone and Rohl edit the Rohl and New Chronology page. Those pages stay fair as long as criticism isn't erased from those pages (and I don't think you'd read Rohl's page and think that Egyptology accepts his theory as valid). As I said, as long as Rohl's dates for Ramesses II isn't placed on the Ramesses II page, etc., it's fine.

On the pseudohistory bit, I think there is an honest difference between "pseudohistory" and "alternative history" -- history isn't like science, it's an art, and you can't always plainly say, like science, this is fact and this is not, thus pseudo, because history is often about the interpretation and explanation of facts. (As an aside, I'd consider Von Daniken a pseudohistorian because he falsifies evidence, Velikovsky and Rohl are just earnestly wrong. [In Rohl's case, though, he has some points.].) Rohl may be wrong, but he's not a pseudohistorian; Gibbon was wrong too, but he's not a pseudohistorian; I think John Toland is wrong about the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, but, some historians do, and there's the page, and I don't consider Toland a pseudohistorian, just a bad one. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought your position was that "pseudohistorian" wasn't even a term, and now you are describing Von Daniken as one? In my book there are pseudo-historical publications, but there isn't really an occupation of "pseudohistorian". One and the same individual may have published a pseudohistorical publication, besides a book on gardening, origami, the geology of the Alps, Shakespeare's sonnets, and post-Nietzscheism in 20th-century philosophy. Would such a person be "a pseudohistorian"?

In the case of David Rohl, I do not think you understood what I was trying to say.

• I do not mind having an article about his "New Chronology". But the article must be about a pseudo-historical theory ostensibly. Instead we get people trying to hide away the fact that this theory has no merit whatsoever by careful rhetorics.
• I do mind having an article on "David Rohl" besides an article on "New Chronology (Rohl)". This is UNDUE. Rohl is notable for his pseudo-historical publications. Once he becomes notable for something else entirely, we may revisit the question of WP:BIO, but at this point, we need one single article about a single topic. Anything else is undue inflation of this thing's notability.

so no, the two pages are not "fair as long as criticism isn't erased". This simply isn't the way Wikipedia works. If you want a page about Rohl'sbiography, you need to make a case that his biography, as opposed to his revisionist publications, is of encyclopedic interest. I fail to see that anybody has even begun to make such a case. --dab (𒁳) 07:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha! You caught me! I've been arguing against the term so much that I started to use it! Rephrase my previous statements, to "I would consider __________'s works psuedohistorical..." and that'll fix my semantic problem. We'll have to just agree to disagree on these two articles, I think they're fine, you think they're excessive. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should raise the pseudohistory issue at the Yahoo Group. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)