Talk:Laurence Gardner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Keep claimed titles, or not
why is there no information on this man in Wikipedia. Censored information is B.S.
Should we really keep his claimed titles (I mean, Knight Templar, right) as if they were actually true. I mean, he's the author behind the Michel Lafosse claims, and his material is mostly ignorant tripe based on the fact that there are ignoramuses who will take it as face value because they have as little clue on actual early Imperial scholarship as he probably does. Because of personal bias (made clear above), and because I am physicaly far from being able to access primary sources, or reliable secondary ones, I am reluctant to edit it yet. Those titles which he claims to have, thus far, been unable to be confirmed, except for those which require nothing other than simply joining the listed organization, which anyone could do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.81.36.33 (talk • contribs).
(Wraithcat) - His claim on his webpage as of 27 Jun 2006 to be a "Professional Member of the Institute of Nanotechnology" have been refuted directly by them. I emailed them directly and they indicated that "Laurence was a member of the institute for a short while until we found out about his unfounded claims and his membership has not been renewed since." This if nothing else casts great doubt upon the veracity of his claims, and indeed his very honesty in continuing to claim membership of this organisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wraithcat (talk • contribs).
- Why not take it as true? The majority of people in the Western world, and particularly America, seem willing to believe the far more preposterous idea that the son of God came to earth, before being killed and then coming magically to life after three days. Yes he makes the claim that some things that have been recorded as fictional or legendary may have basis in reality. Does he back these claims up with evidence from several sources? Why, yes, it appears that he does. Try actually reading the books, or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.61.2 (talk • contribs).
-
- We aren't operating at the standards of "the majority of the people in the western world" here. We're operating according to the the standards and policies of Wikipedia, particularly the five pillars of Wikipedia. Even when it comes to articles about Christianity we strive to maintain NPOV and keep assertions verifiable. --Jackhorkheimer 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Me Again; amusing summary of his writings, which do get stranger in time (he is claiming that LOTR is non-fiction and much of his theories require that the Priory of Sion exist, and might be the single least outrageous proposal needed to make his ideas work) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.81.36.33 (talk • contribs).
- He is NOT claiming that LOTR is non-fiction; he is claiming that it is a fiction based on customs and traditions that have long been forgotten thanks to the oppression and persecution by conservative Christian society.
- Laurence Gardner’s Bloodline of the Holy Grail steals from Barbara Thiering’s book explaining the pesher technique of New Testament interpretation (she believes that scions of the Judaic royal houses had to abstain from having sex with their spouses for six years between each conception) with efforts to track the Grail lineage in British (as opposed to French) history. Gardner seems to have the strange dual goals of anointing Prince Michael of Albany the current Stewart (and hence Grail-Messianic) king, and to convince Americans that they were once (and probably should thus be again) willing to accept a Stewart constitutional monarchy as a viable form of government. Gardner’s motives seem tied up with the mysterious Dragon Order which he is a member of — a chivalric group which may or may not be in some way allied or tied into the PoS. In recent articles in Nexus magazine, Gardner has suggested the secret of the Grail bloodline may be some sort of mysterious elixir, "StarFire," which provides immortality and the ability to travel through space and time. He has also hinted that the Grail ‘bloodline’ may, in fact, consist of albinistic elflike extraterrestrial beings that feast in a vampiric fashion on pineal glands. Gardner’s writings seem to be getting stranger and stranger — I wish I was making that last sentence up.
- and me again. Who are you to say that that does or doesn't happen? Have you proof that it's not true? Did you do extensive research both archaelogical and historical? You have to love skeptics. 'I don't believe this, therefore it must be wrong'. It's not even as if he hasn't tried to prove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.61.2 (talk • contribs).
Yet Again: http://graal.co.uk/affiliates.html ; claims to verify (HIRH Otto von Habsburg-Lothringen doesn't seem to know this European Council of Princes he's supposed to have presided) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.63.61.2 (talk • contribs).
--- Someone else entirely here, and, you cannot prove a negative, you can however rationally dismiss anything nonsensical that is claimed to be true with no supporting empirical evidence.
And then there's the 'gold powder' thing.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chryx (talk • contribs).
[edit] Encyclopedic?
Most of this article is nothing more than a cut and paste of Gardner's articles so I'm going to delete them. Even if the author put them here himself they would still be extremely unencyclopedic for the purposes of this site and would need to be thoroughly reworked in order to be Wikified.--65.113.254.207 23:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd also suggest reverting to last October's version (which I'll do in one week pending an answer), as the part about his top-10 position seems somewhat sycophantic, especially in that records of a top-10 position have yet to produce verification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snapdragonfly (talk • contribs).
- The top-10 business is copied off Gardner's website: http://graal.co.uk/index.html Mrdallaway 11:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC.
Has anyone actually disputed his sources? chrisporker@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.178.8.2 (talk • contribs).
I happen to think that Gardner is on to something, and the fact that you speak so strongly against his claims is only proof to the sensitive nature of the material under scrutiny. People don't enjoy having their comfort zones messed with. Daily routines, familiarity and a certain sense of predictability are what help people to find peace and direction. If the world woke up one day to find out we'd been living a lie, wouldn't we be pretty angry about it? Confused? Discomforted? If this was such "tripe", you wouldn't have anything to worry about, would you? You wouldn't mind that an academic who's willing enough to take his work away from the norms of mainstream academics, and ask some difficult questions that most people are too afraid to ask, wanted to write a few books and share his finds with the general public. You mention Gardner's work on the monatomic gold... everything I've read and seen has been completely supported by the most modern EMPIRICAL scientific testing procedures that Gardner discusses. If you can't disprove his claims any more than you say he can prove his, then you have no right to edit this entry in a grossly negative manner, supporting only your own seemingly self-righteous beliefs. Thanks for your opinions, though. Always welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.83.98 (talk • contribs).
Agreed, but 'reconsidering' his findings or methods does not necessarily have to mean you do it because he's messing with your comfort zones. It's easy to imply, but it doesn't have to be the reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toomanyprotestsingers (talk • contribs).
If you want to keep this article neutral, it's very simple. You list him as an author, you list the books he's written, and describe what each book is about. Not how you feel about the book, or wether you think what he's written is a bunch of BS. You simply put the facts down, and let people come to their own conclusions.
[edit] What about the so called "White powder gold"?
What about this supposed panacea against age effects, illness, etc., "reputed" to be the "Food of Gods" and nutrition of souls?. Mr. Gardner appeards to be linked in any way to this stuff (http://www.whitepowdergold.com/). Anybody can scientifically say what really is this?.
Please email to malpy2004@yahoo.com
Enrique De Tomás —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.39.141.166 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Delete?
Right now the page has only one line, and even that is disputed due to neutrality. Should we just delete the whole thing?68.239.209.107 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I just read the page, he is a real author, I have most of his books. That is the neutrality dispute about? Chikanamakalaka 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I for one have no reason to conceal my IP address,(as others have done here by logging in) and as such I claim that Laurence Gardner is much more detailed as an investigator, linguist, and historian, than many whom I have read. I have personally researched early christian history for 35 years. There is quite a difference between reading some half baked "expert" who have published some christian literature on the subject, and taking an objective view of the subject. In order for that to happen, you need to reference hundreds if not thousands of literary works. When you do, the picture becomes perfectly clear. Its not a picture that any "organized religion" wants to be made public. Remember that there is no dispute among historians that "those that win the battles write the history you read". I caution everyone to use their own brains and do the work. Its called DUE-DILLIGENCE. Its the stuff that creates science in every form. You must be dilligent, do your homework, otherwise you could easily be sold a bill of goods. That bill could be your support of a war that might not be legitimate, or it could be the support of a religious establishment serving their own purpose. Laurence Gardner has done his homework. Research his life history, do your homework. As someone who has traveled this earth and visited over 36 countries, and has a personal library of over 3000 books related to Theology, and belief system, I can assure you that unless you are dilligent, you can be sold anything.
[edit] Citations removed
They simply didn't meet WP:V. Two of them didn't even cite the reviewers real name. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paranormal tag
To be a conspiracy theorist is not necessarily to be a paranormalist, or vice versa; plenty of people who believe JFK was shot by a US government cabal roll their eyes at the notion of extraterrestrials...and likewise, vice versa. What connection is there to The Unexplained other than that? --Chr.K. 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see your qualms, but you'll note that he's not catted under paranormal. I think the header is just there because the paranormal project decided they'd look over and maintain the page. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not good enough
This is an utterly paltry article for a fairly high profile author who writes detailed books on complex subjects. Whether you agree with his ideas or not you can't deny that there should at least be information here as to what they are. Deleting huge swathes of text on the basis that "Most of this article is nothing more than a cut and paste of Gardner's articles so I'm going to delete them" is not the kind of attitude to take at all. If you think something is unencyclopedic then either take the time to re-write it carefully or leave it alone. Sachabrunel 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
