Talk:R. Cedric Leonard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrary to what you may have found on the internet, the Neotarian College of Philosophy was never a “paper mill” (definition: you pay their price and they send you a “diploma”—in short, you “buy” a diploma). I took some of their courses, and visited their offices while en route to Quincy Illinois back in 1972. At that time they had several curriculae (religion, psychology, philosophy, etc.) and an administrator over each, who oversaw the content of lessons sent out. They also saw to it that subsequent tests were graded and grades properly recorded. In the end they determined whether or not the student was awarded a diploma. They had secretaries and a mailing room. This was not a one-room one-man operation. It was never an accredited institution, and didn’t claim to be; but it was never a "paper mill" as claimed. It was simply a non-accredited correspondence school. If one so desired, he could purchase a nice hardbacked, gold-embossed binding in order to preserve all lessons received.

The scenario given by the New York Times writer is totally inaccurate. Either he stuck his head in the door, and saw only what he wanted to see; or has taken someone else’s word (not uncommon). You can keep the misleading reference in the article if you like (I have no control over that), but it cites misleading information—you can take that to the bank. Firecircle (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this place other than what I've read, and under Wikipedia guidelines personal knowledge doesn't count as you may know. The point is though the doctorate would generally be considered -- um, not real to be polite, and I think things like that need to be pointed out.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you evidently don't think much of this man. I created the article, so if you think him unworthy of being in Wikipedia I can remove it. Firecircle (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinions about someone or something shouldn't have anything to do with whether they or it should have an article - 'I don't like it' is not a good reason for an article not to exist.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Leonard has never tried to hide the fact that his doctorate came from a nonaccredited school (I got my wording off his book “Quest for Atlantis”--it has for years been in plain view on the bio page of his web site. He never uses Dr. for a title on his web site. What I object to is the false characterization in the reference you provided (you’re taking his word for it, yet you seem adamant about staying with what I know to be a false account). As I said, I have no control over that. But your apparent hostility toward anyone possessing a nonaccreditted diploma has also led you to omit a paragraph concerning "new" (or processual) archeology and its proponants use of the "Americanize" spelling; plus the fact that Leonard was an advocate of the newer "post-processual archeology". There is nothing non-factual about any of this (I included valid references which can be verified on the internet), so why the omission (with the demeaning comments)? What was it in that paragraph that you found non-factual. Would you please explain? Finally, you seem to insist on saying he “claims” to be self-taught in Canaanite and Egyptian inscriptions. He gives a word-for-word interlinear translation of the Tulli transcription on his web site. When years later a German Egyptologist’s translation appeared on the internet, he found he had made a couple of mistakes (relatively minor) and admitted “revising” his translation because of it. Ninety percent of his translation agreed with the Egyptologist’s. What does he have to do to convince one that his claims have a solid basis? All this information is contained on his web site—including a link to the German translation. Firecircle (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the original research you put in? It isn't a question of factual or non-factual, it's a question of being able to verify it in a reliable source ('it' being how it applies to Leonard). As for 'claims', although it is correct, I'll remove it (surely he does claim to be self-taught). Remember, his web site is all 'claims', we can only use it as representing what he says and claims, not for what is factual. --Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It is difficult to prove (by another source) that post-processual principles were actually applied archeologically. Leonard always worked under the state archaeologist Dr. Don Wycoff (spelling?), who was a processual archaeologist at the time; but he later became an enthusiast of Dr. William Dever, who worked according to post-processual guidelines. Leonard is an advocate of that school of thought--I think I used the word "advocate" in the paragraph in question. Thanks anyway for trying to work with me on these problem. I appreciate the one concession. Firecircle (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Doug, please explain why William Bryk is a more reliable source than Frank Joseph. At least Joseph is specializing in Atlantology (as is Leonard), and other Atlantologists should be in the best position to express an opinion on the subject. Bryk is just trying to badmouth something which obviously wrankles his feathers. Wikipedia should be interested in the truth, not just an opinion. When I have referenced someone's opinion (at least on this article), they are omitted. Firecircle (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Doug! I just received a warning about blanking something out. Other than the time several days ago (which I had mentioned to you before I did it that time: see above) I haven't blanked out anything. What's going on? Firecircle (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources - and the truth

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source drawing upon primary and secondary sources, see WP:PSTS. This is something that can be hard to get your head around, and I'm still learning about it. What it is not (and do read WP:NOT is an attempt to publish 'the truth' (see the humorous essay at WP:TRUTH), it is trying to provide information based upon verifiable and reliable sources. Here you need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. This quote is a good start:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

And: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" -- read WP:REDFLAG

Frank Joseph woulc be considered an unreliable source. A friend wrote this about him, which might give you some insight inro him.[1]. A diversion for a minute on terminology. People who think that Ancient Egyptians visited the Americas, Celts, etc, often call themselve 'Diffusionists'. This is a bit misleading/confusing, as every archaeologists/anthropologist I know, personally or otherwise, believes in diffusion, and I personally think of people like the first type (everyone visited America) as hyperdiffusionist. I know quite a few hyperdiffusionists via the Internet and am on friendly terms with some (others throw brickbats at me). Most of them don't like Frank Josephy, partially because of his support of Burrows Cave which most hyperdiffusionists see as an embarrassing hoax, but also because he once edited an article of Cyclone Covey's without telling him in a way that changed the meaning of the article. Another term applied to people like Leonard is 'pseudoarchaeologist', which has reminded me that his article should have that Wikipedia category added to it. I don't understand what happens to people like him -- I've just looked at this stuff on Tiwanaku and he's just ignored all the modern archaeology and geology about it, and doesn't even bother to tackle the problem that the stones weren't in their original places when Posnansky did his work. (And his refusal to use the modern name probably says as much as dropping the 'a' in archaeology).

Anyway, back to sources. I hope the above helps to explain why personal knowledge and Frank Joseph don't count as reliable and verifiable sources, but newspapers (usually) do. Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that about Frank Joseph. Thanks for answering in such detail. I think we've successfully beat that dead horse long enough. When I originally put all those references in I was trying to make up for a "non-important" type template which had popped up, and was trying to make him as important as possible. I wish I had left the article alone, and maybe they would have removed it. Firecircle (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Leonard's archaeological page barely touches on each of the sites presented--it seems he wants to keep each article short and relatively free from long discussions of minutae. It mostly discusses incongruities he sees as existing between the dates normally assigned to them and certain data (often extinct animals depicted, indications of changes in elavation, etc.) which he sees as favoring older dates. If I am interpreting correctly, he presents only the problems not being faced (as he sees it), and not as a thorough archaeological dissertation of any of them. I think he has some points; but he is sure to be critized for this kind of treatment. Firecircle (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)