RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser
We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
Goal: $5000 Donations so far: $5000

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
Help and donate today!

Talk:Douglas Weller

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Archivist


[edit] Doug Weller's additions to our article

The guy himself has shown up on our Wiki and made some changes to the article on him. Anybody more familiar with the topic at hand care to address his concerns? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked on the internet for him hes a classic crackpot theres been a lot of criticism about him, apparently he sits on wikipedia nearly 24/7 arguing with people and trolling history forums claiming he is qualified but he has no qualifications in history or archaeology.DinoCrisis (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, if his edit is the truth, then the article is no longer notable so should be vaped. Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Bad Faith (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, so where are we leaning here? I'll grant the dude that he's retired, so him being a "troll" on Wikipedia is probably inaccurate. It's just his hobby with all his free time. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
He's a well known troll on Amazon (both com & uk) [1][2] He pretends to be a rationalist but ends up giving rationalism a bad name, he is most likely a YEC or something in disguise. He one line reviews creationist or pseuoscience books, leaving personal attacks which actually gives credit to them (perhaps that is his goal). Boglin (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
So he's bad at what he does. Nobody said a Rationalist has to be Carl Sagan. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
edit conflict, replying to DinoCrisis but this is also a response to Boglin, look at the links, I'm obviously not a Creationist, I'm recommended by some clearly non-fringe sites. But I guess if these people like me, I shouldn't worry about what fringe people say.
In other words, you looked at the fringe sites and took their word for it. You confused sci.archaeology, sci.archaeology.moderated, and my personal website. Do you really think Ed Conrad isn't a troll? He never had a post accepted at sci.archaeology.moderated. And the bit about being addicted to Wiki? Why that link, why not http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2008-11/msg00018.html? And really, Garry Denke, who claims to own Stonehenge?[3]
G-D owns Stonehenge, the Heelstone, and Ark of the Testimony (Covenant) below it. Queen certainly is a C**t in my Book old chap. Your obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is quite sad; Helen, intervention works. Love, G-D
Yes, I get criticised by fringe people, and as an Administrator at Wikipedia I take a lot of flack, that goes with the territory. But what is it that makes me a crackpot? Not believing that aliens built the pyramids? Not believing in Atlantis?
What makes you a crackpot is that without putting in the work to study any one thing to the point where you can speak on it with erudition you disdainfully delete thousands of other peoples research preventing them from communicating with their peers who often are looking for exactly the information you got rid of. You don't limit yourself to claims that Aliens built the pyramids you destroyed the long standing Wikipedia page on Proportion (architecture) There was no need for that. You destroyed pages giving site information for archaeological sites. Most of us here consider you to be the equivalent of a vandal trying to burn down a library because you think science is fiction.Academia (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is the diff for Proportion (architecture) The original version was clearly not deserving of being replaced with what you left Proportion (architecture) Academia (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

My website has had praise, I've been mentioned in Ken Feder's Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology, my website is mentioned at [4], [5], [6], and [[7] and many similar sites. I'm mentioned in this book [8]m etc. Yes, despite all my degrees and having been an academic for 10 years I have no qualifications in archaeology or history (although I took a number of history courses at Yale), but so what? I rarely post on history forums or anywhere else for that matter any more. I'm retired so have time (if not 24/7) to do a lot of work on Wikipedia. If I were a troll or crackpot I wouldn't be an Administrator there. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the pet shop thing is just nuts, I've never owned any kind of shop. My wife and I have 3 dogs and I used to hava a blog about them. We run them in agility races, etc. You really should have a way of preventing lies about people in biographies. Again, we'd never allow Usenet to be used as a source (I mean, the Doug Weller there could be anyone, couldn't it?). Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And thanks, without this nonsense I wouldn't have found [9]. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it is the Doug Weller from the Usenet forums, the same Doug Weller who on the Prophecies group used to be a crazy attack dog for "internet seer" aka huge conman Sollog.Here. Sorry for my inability to use Wiki sites, just thought you guys would be interested. (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller has had a presence on the internet going back to 1994 with his setting up a group "Sci.archaeology.moderated and making himself a moderator so he could first introduce discussion of strange fringe ideas and then attempt to debunk them. Unfortunately many meople posting to sci.archaeology and sci.archaeology moderated were actual scholars. I can remember one individual Milo Gardiner who was studying Egyptian unit fractions and frequently cited the work of mathematicians at Stanford such as Kevin Brown. His work had come up with a number of algorithms the Egyptians had used to calculate arithmetic and geometric series, the area of circles and spherical solids, and then referenced in the work of other mathematicians who found modern applications for the systems which were in actual use up through the middle ages.

For 21 years he has been butting heads with people who actually know something about the topics they contribute to and then come back and find Weller has deleted all their work. I looked the number of deletions up five years ago and it was something like 21,000 deletions. Weller and other editors of similar convictions absolutely destroyed the article on Proportion (architecture) you can go back to the article history and see the damage for yourself.Academia (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to add the simple statement that Ramses III had haplogroup E1b1a (Zahi Hawass et al) and that E1b1a is the haplogroup connected to the Bantu Expansion (see anything about E1b1a). Doug Weller keeps removing this information, because it indicates that the Ancient Egyptians were Black, which he hates. His excuse is that saying this is NORN. Now it's NPOV. He seems to think it is his mission to retain Eurocentric myths. Maybe it is his Southern background? Anyway, he is a nuisance.

[edit] Deleted

I've deleted the article. It was mostly inaccurate garbage and nothing more. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the pet shop stuff but I think what was written on the article was accurate regarding the sci stuff becuase if the man is qualified then why has he not shown his qualifications? He reminds me of the creationists who pretend to have degrees but this time it is a bogus skeptic. Just becuase the man is an "admin" on wikipedia and spends all day on there means nothing, the owner of wikipedia Jimmy owns a porn website (see the wikihive website) thats how "rational" wikipedia is theres cranks and crackpots all over wikipedia, just becuase one user may have some authority on there doesn't make them immune from criticism. The question is why would doug pretend to have seven academics reviewing his skeptic website when in reality it is only him reviewing it and none of the academics exist? That is kook behaviour. Also you can't claim to be a "professional" archaeologist if you have no education whatsoever in the subject. But who cares im sure theres other websites exposing the kook already perhaps hes too minor to be on rationalwiki. DinoCrisis (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have seen Doug Weller step in and help out on some of the pages I watch on Wikipedia. I don't remember any signs of crackpottery, and that kind of stuff gets my attention in a memorable way. I'm willing to call the man level-headed and useful. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
He certainly has seemed so in person. I reserve everybody the right to individually prove they are a crazy person, and so far he has responded very reasonably to his criticism and made a good case for why it was bunk, which earns many respect points in my book. I'm going to need significant evidence to be convinced of kookiness, rather than aspersions of doubt and uncertainty. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRmore at 11 15:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually disappointed, I thought we'd get some good popcorn moments out of this. Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, Rational Wiki was rational? shit, does that mean I *can't* drink? --Green mowse.pngGodotIz a sekret Kristian 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Basically this happened. -> ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 16:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

hows this [10] he shows a clear enough lack of logic that I went looking and found you, the above is popcorn funny, TL:DR is one of the arguments we have against him in the first place so its funny to me that you know him in person and funner that you think your opinion of his personalty has impact on his ability to be rational or discerning, the deletion of fossil record here shows that it can be done anywhere so I remade the article as I do not share your lack of evidence nor will I be giving the benefit of doubts, they have been spent.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

[edit] Comment on confusion over my website and the moderated Usenet group

As I've said, although I've taken courses at the University of Birmingham in night school (the equivalent of 1st year University courses) and history at Yale, I'm not qualified in those subjects, but how does that matter at all? In the UK at least amateur archaeologists are highly thought of, some even run fairly large excavations. Jimbo doesn't own Wikipedia, it's owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. He doesn't run it either. How I can be a kook and have my website on academic websites, etc. is a bit beyond me. And where did I claim that anyone at all reviewed my website? No one reviews my website. I think you are confusing it with sci.archaeology.moderated whose original moderators are below (note how I'm described). Sorry, I've struck the original list which was the first list, we had further discussions and the final list is at [11] (we managed to get Nigel Strudwick[12] on board). Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Leakage from Wikipedia

Just added factual data to Semir Osmanagic WIkipedia page and this internet troll who is neither a geologist nor archaeologist speedy deleted all my info including recent articles of the Dr.'s latest findings at the pyramids in Bosnia. I emailed Doug Weller and he refuses to reply. I also submitted an appeal to the deletion. He claimed i added copyrighted data which i did not. The guy is obviously an skeptic and wants to kill any new findings that disturb his narrow world view. Here is an article about him that wikipedia banned me from posting on the appeal. No doubt Mr Weller had a hand in that too- he's been a wiki editor for 7 years and if you google him he comes up on several skeptic sites- http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-at-wikipedia. Id like to add that i do have a degree in archaeology. He has messed with the wrong guy. — Unsigned, by: Vasalloe / talk / contribs 19 March 2014‎ Vasalloe (UTC)

You have picked the wrong place to complain. We don't think high of the Osmanagic's claims either.
Examiner.com is a self-publishing source, not a respected news service. It's essentially a glorified blog hosting.
America Unearthed peddles pseudoarcheology, so whatever Scott Wolter is complaining about is probably justified.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I found this article on him after he deleted my factual information on recent discoveries and scientific analysis on Bosnian Pyramid site...Mr Weller immediately deleted everything i posted and most were actual links to articles on findings. This guy is unethical period. He is not a neutral wiki editor by any means. i tried to post this article to appeal his deletes and Wiki said its a link on their banned links list which im sure mr. weller had a hand in- http://www.examiner.com/article/scandal-at-wikipedia — Unsigned, by: Vasalloe / talk / contribs 20 March 2014‎ (UTC)
Zooguard already pointed out that Examiner.com is an unreliable source. You are complaining in the wrong place here: the talk page of a deleted RationalWiki article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Cobb WP article

The Wikipedia article on Craig Cobb was slanted so that, instead of being Neutral Point of View, it gave undue weight to the opinions of persons who were hostile to Craig Cobb. It was one-sided, and it was partially implicitly false. I supplied corrections that seemed necessary, the knowledge to do which came from videos made by Cobb/Dutton and from discussions on forums that are friendly to white nationalists. Doug Weller removed those corrections on the grounds that they weren't properly sourced. Cobb was, more or less, the victim of intimidation and extortion under color of law, by a conspiracy between the local civil authorities and residents of Leith ND. Craig Cobb isn't the only subject of the kind of bias with which Wikipedia treated him. I observed it, also, in the treatment of April Gaede and her daughters about 2006-8. Wikipedia is a good resource for researching math, the physical sciences, or technology, but it sucks wherever Leftists have an interest in a false narrative, whether the topic is historical, or whether it involves genetics or current events. There's a kind of elite censorship squad that imposes reversion to the false narrative in such cases, usually under the hypocritical pretext of improving accuracy or returning to a Neutral Point of View. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-skeptic

Doug Weller is a pseudo-skeptic. He reviews books he's never read on Amazon, and makes himself look like a total idiot. For example he gives 5 stars to Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney Castleden. It is apparent he never read this book because he writes: "What he is not arguing is that either Minoan Crete or Cyladic Thera was Atlantis. He is suggesting that instead Plato drew his story of Atlantis from proto-historical elements about both civilizations." This is completely false, Castleden actually makes the Cretan-Atlantis equation throughout his book and argues Atlantis is a traditional story, not a story Plato himself invented (inspired by Crete, or "drew his story" from Cretan elements). Castledon's book is basically fringe history (he is not a scholar, but an independent researcher). No genuine skeptic would recommend it, and the book has never been taken seriously by classicists. Krom (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I would describe Doug Weller as a very real skeptic who thinks he knows it all and manages to impress low information Wikipedians with the boldness of his burning of the library. If you take the time frame for the source of the tale as given by Plato, it dates to c 600 BC when the priests of Sais, a Greek emporia or international trading port told Solon the story of the Phoenician Fleet that Pharaoh Neco sent around Africa to return to the Mediterranean through the Pillars of Hercules as explorers. It was current news in Solon's time but by the time his grandchildren many times removed told it to Plato it had become myth how a power had come forth out of the Atlantic and founded a new ocean empire greater than Libya Asia and Europa combined because it consisted of the waters that surrounded them. Given a story like that which is nothing more than history Doug Weller looks for ways to make it seem strange and fabulous, focusing on the myth and legend rather than the truth. There are of course other elements to the story, the disappearance of Atlantis in a single day and night might well refer to Thera which was disruptive to Egypt c 1628 BC and the cyclical nature of climate change disasters when the innundation failed. Drought, famine, and plague might have had an oral tradition in Egypt going back to the 1st and second intermediate as well as the expulsion of the Hyksos but that is a compilation of many different events rather than just the facts pertaining to the trading emporia that supplied Karnak with mortuary goods across the Red Sea for three millenia. Academia (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

All I can do is quote Castleden. Castleden p. 7 "The thesis of this book is that this story is not one piece of identifiable proto-history but several, and that Plato drew them together because he wanted to weave them into a parable that commented on the state of the world in his own times." p. 181 "The hypothesis revived repeatedly in the twentieth century - that Minoan Crete was Atlantis - has proved inadequate to the case and has been rightly been rejected." If that means what Krom claims Castleden said I'll admit to a lot of confusion. I see Krom's retired. I'm certainly not going to argue about Atlantis.Academia seems to only edit about me. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The quotes you selected do not support what you are saying, especially if you read what follows the second quote. Yes, Castledon thinks Minoan Crete was Atlantis is inadequate because following Galanopoulos he puts the metropolis on a separate adjacent island (i.e. Thera) "combined they do meet the needs of Plato's description" p. 161 - you left that off your second quote (lol). Some other quotes: "Second, there are fuller accounts of myths tat are recognizably based on genuine oral traditions... It is the trust of this book that the Atlantis story is of this type" - p. 152 "I believe the Atlantis myth to be a myth of the second kind (based mainly on genuine ancient traditions), though I am aware that many scholars believe it to be a myth of the third kind (using some traditional elements but mainly a Platonic invention) - p. 153

Castledon treats Atlantis as an oral tradition passed down from Solon, and not Plato's invention (and he even admits his position is not that of mainstream scholarship). All he says about a parable is that Plato embellished the tale for his own political purposes. He still regards Minoan Crete to be Atlantis e.g. the main plain.

As I said this will all be documented on a site and everyone can laugh more at Doug (who reviews books he's never read, and poses online as some sort of archaeologist/historian when he has no training or background in these areas, but oftens lies about his credentials online).DougWellerisalunatic (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools