Talk:Robert Lomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were a few problems with this article, as first written, that I have corrected. Most are simply styalistic changes to make it read better. The greatest change was in deleting the statement: "He has now established himself as one of the worlds leading authorities on the history of Freemasonry and science..." I would hardly say that Mr. Lomas has "established himself as a leading authority" on anything other than how to write a best selling book. As far as his "authority" on Freemasonry goes, most historians find his theories to be highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst. Blueboar 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I accept some moderations to a page I need not have gone to the trouble to add. Some changes are great. I do, however, wish to maintain the factual information about Lewis Masonic because it is a notable publisher as part of Freemasonic history. Thanks to Blueboar for returning it, however I have further returned the good old historical bit since there's no harm at all in presenting this useful historical information to the end-user. :-) I accept the initial response from Blueboar regarding the questionable statement I made surrounding Lomas' significance in Freemasonry and science. I actually agree at removing science - it was far too sweeping - but I would like to return the former claim on part of Freemasonry since statistically the best-selling author is. Blueboar removed a statement about the number of languages worldwide the Hiram Key has been translated in. I wholly accept this for the time being until I source where I came across this important data. Finally, I would like to offer Blueboar the chance to retract his most bizarre statement. It regards his libellous last point and substantial unfounded claim that "most historians find [Lomas'] theories to be highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst". Are you just proving that it isn't just myself who can romantically and quite accidentally make a tad sweeping statement? :-) Moreover, to be quite frank, you are merely subjectively dismissing a statement in a style that can only lead to the beginning of petty policing whereby we may both keep altering the information presented. And besides, I did say "one of the". Dr Lomas' books are very much best-selling. What is your point? Are you saying that this is of no concern when deciding upon the relevance of a person's research? Have you sold your findings around the world millions times over? Oh, and not forgetting the view that your findings might be 'highly speculative' and 'out right rubbish at worst'. Come on, I hardly think theories that are "highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst" would be so well travelled and referenced. Xzrox Wednesday 11th January 2006 @ 3.46 GMT

OK, I admit that I may have indulged in a bit of Hyper-ventallation there. My statement was indeed 'a bit sweeping'. But at least I kept my sweeping statements on the Talk page where they belong, and did not put them into the article itself. That said, I do not totally retract my concerns and edits ... It does not matter how popular Mr. Lomas's ideas are among the general public, nor how many copies of his book he has sold. It is true that Lomas's theories on the history and developement of Freemasonry are NOT accepted by the majority of Masonic Historians. It is simply incorrect to call him a "leading authority" on the subject. Not even the addition of "one of the" will make it true ... my objection is to the word "authority". However, he certainly is one of the leading "authors" on the subject, and with that change, I will let the statement stand.
As to some of my other (less controversial) edits: I took out (twice, now) the statement that Knight and Lomas were the first to publicise the connection to Rosslyn Chapel... they were not. The very sentence that this statement appeared in contradicts this: "Rosslyn Chapel, which is a place long been famous for its possible connections to Freemasonry and its attendant rituals..." How can Rosslyn be "a place long famous for its connections" if that connection was first publicised in The Hyram Key - a book which is less than 10 years old! I am sorry, but several authors beat Mr. Lomas to the punch: see John Robinson's "Born in Blood", and Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" just to name the more "popular" (and therefore "authoritive" by your definition) books which discuss the topic.
As for your concern over the my removal of the fact that The Hyram Key appears in several languages... I simply felt that that was irrelevant information. Blueboar 17:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a controversy section to point out to readers the criticisms of Lomas' work. This is my first major addition to the Wikipedia, so please do what's necessary if I have wrecked NPOV. I think what I wrote is fair and accurate. Intelligent Masons don't buy into the poor scholarship. In my opinion, the profit from book sales is Lomas' motivation.

Contents

[edit] Controversy and POV

I note that the controversy section has devolved into a "who likes Lomas and who doesn't" sniping contest. Much of what was added was POV... on both sides of the argument. First, many of the statements were not about Lomas or his work, but about the people commenting on it (such as the statements about the "United Grand Lodge of America being critical of AASR SJ.) (by the way... what is the UGLA? As far as I know there is no such beast?... at least not in regular recognized Masonry... but I digress). Anyway... I have pared the section back to plain verifyable statements of Fact... some people do not agree with Lomas (short list), others do agree (short list). If you need to expand on these facts, please keep focused on positive and negative comments about LOMAS and his work... not positive and negative comments about the commentators. Blueboar 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trend

There seems to be atrend occurring whereby one or two editors of various articles relating to freemasonry are choosing to insert highly POV material into encyclopedic discussions. Whatever incidents may have caused the formation of the Unite Grand Lodge of America, wiki is not a soapbox for addressing these concerns. A number of UGLA persons have lamented in various foums how due process is not being followed in various US jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and then here on wiki we see what appears to be a UGLA supporter trying defy community guidelines regarding how the encyclopedia should be modified. For example, the need for NPOV, and the need to avoid personal attacks.--Vidkun 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The United Grand Lodge of America is irregular and clandestine. It is not in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England or any other Regular Grand Lodge, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, some of the editors of this article think it's a personal attack to say that Lomas uses the creeping assertion fallacy (saying "It seems that Hiram was a pharoah" and then later claiming "We've proven that Hiram was a pharoah."). If Lomas had evidence, then his claims would be valid. I'll sit and wait for such evidence. . . Prewitt81

[edit] POV again

My brothers... irregular or regular as you choose... I would like to ask you all to back up a second and think. This article is a biographical sketch of Robert Lomas. It needs to focus ON Mr. Lomas, and not on what we may think about him or his work. Now, I think the "controversy" section is valid, but only because his work has engendered controversy. We need to keep this NPOV. It is fair to say that X group thinks Lomas's theory is flawed, while Y group diagrees and thinks his theory is valid. The statements need to be cited, but they are fair statements. It is not fair or NPOV to say B group thinks that C group is full of crap or visa versa. Please... let's keep this focused on Mr. Lomas and his theories and not on our personal agendas. This relates to both Lomas supporters and Lomas detractors. If you need to do so, please read WP:NPOV. Finally... Please remember that this is not a lodge meeting. Regularity does not matter here. NONE of us are Masons here... we are all nothing but fellow editors. As such we should be civil and work together to create a good article. I'll step off my soapbox now. Thank you. Blueboar 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems this entire page is slowly becoming a vanity page, as the additions of information by Martin Faulks and Peter Gower (wiki editors) seem to directly refer to an interview by Peter Gower of Martin Faulks. Isn't this what is considered original research?--Vidkun 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the history, it started out as a vanity page. The original read like a promo for the Hiram Key. Blueboar 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

I've added disambiguation to the intro, Lomas is a Business lecturer not a profesisonal historian, the intro as it stood lent more weight to his authority than was appropriate.

The article needs a more complete list of his work, at the moment it focusses only on Masonic titles, his marketing and IT work needs to be listed as well, unfortunately his own website doesn't list them.

I've removed the UGLA link as linkspam. It's not referred to in the article and it looks to be irregular, associating him with it does him a dis-service.

This needs a lot of structural work and some content work to reduce POV, at the moment it is a vanity page but it is notable enough to need to be here.ALR 13:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] additional question

It poses little impact to the article itself, but the interview of Martin Faulks was conducted by "Peter Gower"??? Peter Gower is the name used in a number of Masonic exposes, and occasionally as the example name in some Masonic cypher books and monitorial works instead of "Mr. A. . . B. . .", and is said to be a corruption of Pythogoras. That interview is considered a serious piece of work?--Vidkun 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the link the interview was for 'The Ashlar', which is a Scots Masonic magazine. I get the mag and don't recall the article, but it can be pretty dry sometimes with lots of detailed histories of temples and museums. Notwithstanding that I don't recall having seen the name in anything else, except as a user name of someone who did some flyby edits in a number of articles. The section needs reworded as it's pretty POV at the moment, in fact the wording probably constitutes weaseling. I don't know of many serious Masons who place much value in Lomas' work and given that he's not a professional historian then it's a fair stretch of the imagination to come up with the link.ALR 19:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitterness towards Robert Lomas

Looking back on previous edits, the original seems fine. I don't actually see any problem. And I don't see why it has to be turned in to some kind of attack at this historian. - THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Lomas is not a historian, he writes fantasy novels which masquerade as historical research. Yes, it would seem Lomas dabbles in lots of fields, but so do lots of people; at professional levels. For the sake of example, would you say Bill Gates can only be one of a coder, a philanthropist, a businessman, a speaker? Come off it. The changes look bitter, especially when making claims such as 'amateur historian' - be careful when using such terminology - and Lomas would appear to be more of a professional in the field of freemasonry than business when you look at his bibliography and aclaim he has received in the fields he writes. Don't fall in to the trap of only citing/taking on board negative criticism of artists because it looks subjective. The revert is fine because it makes a simple point whilst not displaying any bitterness towards this person. I don't see any reason why it needs to be altered again. 18:43, 13 May 2006 (BST)

After more thought, "Robert Lomas is a British writer and academic", end of. It's clear, it's succinct. An NPOV is actually wasted here. 18:54, 13 May 2006 (BST)
given that the previous version was little more than an advert I would dispute the suggestion that previous versions were an improvement. Lomas is not recognised as an authority within Freemasonry, indeed an serious student of Freemasonry recognises that his work is predominantly fictional. Therefore I've added back the tag.ALR 19:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It bis important to bear in mind that the works of Dr. Lomas and Messers Knight, Baignet, Leigh, SInclair and Wallace-Murphy are not historical studies, they are novels based on a confabulation of wishful thinking, failure to assess source material critically and, to a considerable extent, a desire to make a lot of money from the credulous. No historian worth her (or his) salt is likley to give these novelists the time of day. As for Dr. Lomas being a 'leading authority', it is worth bearing in mind that his total disregard for historiographical or historiological process rather undermines his claims, or, for that matter, claims made on his behalf. The Templars/Roslin chapel fantasies that have proved so popular over the last 20 years or so are derived solely from the romances of Father Hay in the 1700s. They are not history in any sense, merely romatic tales. (comment added at top of page by User:81.155.32.194 19:41, 26 June 2006... Moved here by Blueboar.)

[edit] Megalithic Yard and Columbus

The folling lines were added to the end of the "controversy" section:

  • Lomas has also proven his critics from detailing his technique upon the Megalithic Yard. As well the fact that columbus was not the first to find America.

I have removed them not because I disagree in any way... but because I have no idea what they are trying to say... the sentence structure of the first sentence is so muddled that it makes no sense... does it mean Lomas proved his critics wrong? Did he prove them right? What does "proven from detailing" mean? And what is Lomas's technique on the Megalithic Yard? etc.Blueboar 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/Talk%7ERobert_Lomas_284b.html"