Talk:John Michell (writer)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Corrected links
After creating this page I corrected a number of links previously wrongly directed to John Michell. However, I may have missed some.Rodparkes 03:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thought Provoking Author, the Pros and Cons
the article as it stood was essentially falling over itself in fawning praise. It is ok to quote positive reviews, but a minimal effort is required to maintain WP:NPOV. Michell does appear to write very well, but, let's face it, the majority of his publications seem to be hilarious pseudoscience for the esotericist market. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I will assume good faith Dbachman's use of the word pseudoscience is far from NPOV and suggests he has both a disregard for the subject matter in question and scanty information about its' author John Michell. John Michell has no middle name and does not use a middle initial. Dbachmann's Talk Page is revealing. He is called to task for starting edit wars, "wasting everyone's time" and, most importantly, for repeatedly creating stub articles with negative content, perhaps for the sole purpose of merging the stub into established good articles. I suggest Dbachmann read the first paragraph on the Talk Page of any living persons' biography. It is always a good idea to add the ISBN and the publisher to an author's bibliography along with both sides of a critique of a living author's indivdual work. I would also caution about using extraneous words in order to dilute the meaning of a phrase and the use of quote marks with the same intent.SageMab (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab
As for the word pseudoscience, just because something is defined on Wiki does not mean it is not a loaded, or even incorrect, term. You need to be careful in applying it to a living author's work. Some call the teachings of the Catholic Church dogma, others call it true belief. Let history be the judge. SageMab (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab
- I have no idea whether Michell "really" has a middle name. The fact is that some of his works are published under the name "John F. Michell". Amazon gives 19 hits. I am completely agnostic on whether Michell likes his middle initial, but it is a simple pragmatic fact that it is useful when searching for his books on amazon.com or elsewhere. I did not use "pseudoscience" in the article text, so that your revert remains completely unjustified. I asked you in good faith to acknowledge that some of Michell's publications are ostensibly pseudo-scholarly. If you are not prepared to engage in constructive debate at least try to engage in constructive editing. Since you allege that Michell renounces the "F." (without citing evidence, I might add), I now propose we state "sometimes credited as John F. Michell", which is a straightforward fact. Concerning "pseudoscience", Michell is apparently the author on ley lines, which are duly categorized in Category:Earth mysteries, which in turn is properly categorized in Category:Pseudoarchaeology (without any involvement on my part, I might add). I cannot see how you might want to dispute that Michell's main topics are ostensibly topics of pseudo-archaeology. Of course, this doesn't mean that everything he writes is automatically without merit, and a treatise on, say, Shakespeare authorship has to be reviewed independently (it has been, and has incidentially been characterised as an "unconvincing piece of shaky scholarship" by Publisher's Weekly). dab (𒁳) 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I would hardly call your work on this article "constructive editing". To wit, you deleted details of a living authors' life (John Michell's service in the Royal Navy, his work as a Russian Translator and Surveyor along with his London birthplace), added quote marks in order to POV a term (i.e. scred sites, you added "ritualized landscape"), added "loaded' words such as numerology instead of the more precise, in regard to this particular author, gematria and created a John F. Michell stub with two sentences, one of which was a poor review of a patently controversial book about Shakespeare and a bibilography you copied from a website and which you did not take the time to properly reference with publishers and ISBNs. As for the non-existant middle initial (look up his birth records), just because something is listed on the web does not make it accuate. The point of Wiki is to create a factual record, not to perpetuate mistakes. To call you D "Tweedledum" Bachmann or to call Shakespeare "Billy" or "Willie" does not represent consensus and instead is often a thinly-veiled attempted to rewrite history with a POV agenda. I have read "Who Wrote Shakespeare" and find it to be a scholarly, well annotated, read. I do have the academic credentials to pass judgement on this book but my POV, as is yours, is of no matter in relation to this article. Case in point is my addition of scholarly reviews of this book by vetted academics. I suggest you not be intellectually lazy and that you pick up this book and others on this subject and judge for yourself before you get lost in your own Sargasso Sea. See Wikipedia's Shakespeare authorship question page for a start. I would kindly like to remind you to reread your Dbachmann User Talk page which urges you to resist the urge to "engage in flame wars" and to "not waste everyone's time" (a direct quote). As for me, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with a man who is not properly armed. SageMab (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab
stop reverting my edits. In particular, stop calling them "vandalism". See Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:AGF. If you have specific suggestions, make them. If you prefer "gematria" over "numerology", you need only say so. I am not sure how you expect me to "look up his birth records". If you have access to JM's birth records, I must ask you, could it be that you are affected by WP:COI? In that case, I must ask for disclosure. I fail to see how reporting a middle initial can be conceived as "POV". Also review WP:V and WP:TRUTH. What we care about is verifiability, not truth. I have never read a book by JM, and, unlike you by all appearance, am completely free of bias regarding him. I merely report on reviews I happened to find, such as Publisher's Weekly's. Regarding the rest of your comments, it may be that you misjudge me (a paragraph like "Gamatria, a key to studying ancient texts, is the study of words turned into numbers. In Greek and Hebrew there are no numeric characters, only alpha characters" makes it very difficult for me to give you much credit in the same department, so maybe this is mutual. "gematria"="cabbalistic numerology", so unless JM is discussing Cabbalism in particular, we should prefer generic "numerology" over the Rabbinic term). But I have no interest in entering a "battle of wits" with you in any case. I have also no interest in edit-warring with an editor who has no grasp of Wikipedia policy. If you want to continue this debate, make sure you do review the policy pages I link above. Make sure to also review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Precisely because I have no vested interest in this article, I am more than ready to compromise based on convincing evidence. Editing progress is by iteration, not by revert-warring. Judging from your talkpage, I conclude this is your first editing dispute on Wikipedia, and am prepared to make allowance for that. But I must ask you to wisen up, review policy and stop the "vandalism" allegation: unless you do that, your newbie credit will be used up rather quickly. dab (𒁳) 17:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- btw, it is evident from a brief sample of JM's Confessions columns that he is a gifted writer, no dispute there. The problem is that a non-fiction author is not only judged by his style and diction. dab (𒁳) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, syntax is telling. You certainly can turn a phrase. SageMab (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab
We need a more complete citation for the "learned crank obsessed with numbers" quote. At the very least we need a page number. ag —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dbachmann added the "learned crank" quote from a church-affiliated publication and he also added the review from Publisher's Weekly which I have been unable to find online except for Amazon.com. I skimmed over 14 enthusiastic reviews from the public there and could find no reference to it. If it is to be included I think Dbachmann might want to put a link on this page to the review so that readers can judge for themselves. SageMab (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Sage MabSageMab (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Are there any standards about citing dust-jacket copy? The "If Socrates were to write a column" quote is from the DJ of "Confessions," which doesn't indicate where/when Harpur wrote/said this. ag —Preceding comment was added at 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- SageMab, I am by no means intent on smearing Michell, as you seem to assume. Much rather, my motivation was, seeing that you inisist on citing the most fawning adulation, to also cite stuff from the other end of the scale. I am not personally endorsing either end of the spectrum: but that the quotes were specifically selected to illustrate the width of this spectrum was made perfectly clear in the article text. Yes, Ariel, I would also prefer to cut the more incestuous recommendations, which would allow us to also drop the more hostile reactions. It must be possible to discuss this author detachedly, making reference to notable, independent reviewers only. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary Deiter, I do not question your dislike of the author, but I can only assume from your comments on this page, that you hold distain for the subject matter. You have not explained why you reverted my edit detailing a living author's service in the Royal Navy nor his work as a Russian interpreter and Chartered Surveyor before the publication of his first book. You have also not explained why you created a stub for the author when a cursory look at the History of this article shows this was done by Bot and other editors at the the very beginning of the creation of this article. Please illuminate. This stub included a poor review from Publisher's Weekly and, only then, I added reviews from pertinent notables such as the Shakespeare Oxford Library Society Newsletter and the Folger Library for balance. The fact that these reviewers gave favorable reviews to "Who Wrote Shakespeare" does not reflect on any opinion I might have pro or con. You would like a balance and so would I. Once again, I ask you to provide a link to the Publisher's Weekly crit as I have been unable to locate it other than a link to an open-to-the-general public reviewer on Amazon.com who may have misquoted or made up the source. The reviews on Amazon.com were very favorable towards "Who Wrote Shakespeare" but should not be included here, as commentary from vetted academics and scholars carry more weight. Please properly annotate that quote, as you forgot to do with both your unfavorable opinions. I wouldn't want someone to revert your edit as an "unconvincing piece of shaky scholarship."SageMab (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab
I originated this article, but haven't been back for a while, so I am interested to see how it has developed. I enjoy much of Michell's writing but don't always agree with what he says (and the numerology loses me completely), so I made earlier attempts to provide a balanced view. Since Michell's beliefs challenge prevailing orthodoxy, it is inevitable that this will be a difficult task. I think we need to bring out that Michell sees his views as the real orthodoxy held throughout most of history, and the modern world as a temporary departure from the true path, while acknowledging that this makes him a nutter (or more politely, an eccentric) in many people's eyes.
I also think that as it stands, the article over-emphasises the Shakespeare book, which I personally found excellent, but which is only one work among what must be close to a hundred by now. Rodparkes (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Rod, thanks for your thoughts and for originating an article. It was a stub, with the bit about the metric system, and I jumped in and wrote the lions' share of this article, sans the Publisher's Weekly and the churchman crits added by another editor. I had no problems with your edits and your thoughtful comments, unlike Dbachmann's strident POV. I did replace your phrase "harmless eccentric" because it was up for a while and no one backed it up with verification. I replaced it with "eccentric", which this author, I doubt, would contest and Dbachmann replaced it with a"crank" quote since I think he has a pseudoscience axe to grind. I don't think pseudoscience is the point here. After all, all science starts out as pseudoscience. So-called establishment science can also be debunked and labeled pseudoscience (as some of the quantum theorists now label Einsteins' theories). Time will tell as the old saw goes. I, too, have read many of his books, as you said you have, and although I frequent both bookstores and libraries I have never seen any of his books listed as John F. Michell, only on the 'Net. Have you? As for his work on Shakespeare; the book received a lot of attention and was notable for not pushing one view of the authorship question over the other. Michell did say who he was inclined to favor but pointed out that his opinion was not engraved in stone and invited the reader to do further research with his book pointing the way. This author is notable because he does not get stuck with one immutable viewpoint. John Michell is a highly respected author both in Europe and the States and I have never seen him refered to as a "nutter" in print except from you. You might want to change your comment above to "eccentric" unless you can annote it from a notable souce which would be more in line with the Wiki notice at the top of this page in regard to living authors. Keep reading!.SageMab 02:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- can you stop alleging I have a "pov" in this? I have never read Michell, and I do not pretend to have an opinion on him. I did note that this article was written from an unduly imbalanced "pro" position, and added some negative reviews to counter that. If I had found only the negative reviews cited, I would have added positive ones, so I really don't see what you want. I also don't know why you make such a fuss over the F. initial. I don't know what is supposed so controversial about this. Searching for the "F." made it easier to find his books for me, that's all, I don't know if he "should" be called "F.", nor am I interested in the question. "all science starts out as pseudoscience" is patent nonsense. Mitchell is ostensibly a writer on pseudoscientific topics, but I agree this isn't the issue. We can just state it and be done. I still admit he may still be a good author. If I had any interest, at all, to read about "ley lines" or other "Fortean phenomena", I suppose I would pick up a book by JM. Feel free to state JM is "highly respected" as long as you are able to pinpoint by whom he is highly respected, no debate there. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus booklet
I can't see a ref to his slim volume on "Jesus the Great Cock". I have a copy somewhere; as with all JM's work it is interesting in parts. There is a fairly wide triangle between original research, teasing the reader and being a crank, and (IMHO) JM veers all over it. A lot of his theories require a closer study of Earth Magnetism.86.42.206.244 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reception section
Seems to start pretty POV, ie it says critics range from a 'churchman' (exactly what is that?) to academics, when in fact the 'churchman' is the historian Professor Ioan P. Culianu, according to our article on him an "expert in gnosticism and Renaissance magic". The way it is put in the article, readers who know nothing about him could perhaps interpret this as 'well, the guy who criticised him is only some religious guy, whereas the academics say...'. Doug Weller (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- tell me about it. Much like Viktor Rydberg, this article suffers from fan attention bent on white-washing Michell from any criticism. The upshot seems to be that JM is a very smart and eloquent writer, who is far, far out in the realm of pseudoscience and who holds considerable appeal to modern crypto-fascists or "ecofascists" of the "Evola" persuasion. Michell came to my attention because he is fawned upon by Michael Moynihan (journalist), who is himself the object of fan attention trying to whitewash him of his (more obvious than JM's) fascist leanings. dab (𒁳) 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
