Talk:Aris Poulianos

message: Here's just a few of the unacceptable elements in the text version that was plagiarized/paraphrased from Poulianos' own vanity resume from the web:
*"and disproved the widely accepted theories...": POV
*"...widely accepted theories of German anthropology that classify the modern Greeks as a mixed Slavic group" - unsourced, probably factually incorrect. Who are those German anthropologists? Greeks as a Slavic group???!!?
*"...which have shed light on the origins ...": POV
*"...was elected Vice-President of the 8th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences..." - Vanity. Sounds as if it was some high office in a professional organization? Well, somebody let him organize a conference. Big deal.
*"He is also a member of the New York Academy of Sciences..." - Vanity. Sounds as if it was some high professional achievement? Anybody can become a member in the NYAS, it's just a club you pay a membership fee for. .
*"The first proof of native intelligent human presence in Europe came with the discovery ..." Unsourced paragraph that was spammed across multiple articles by a notorious anon POV-pusher. Basically derived from "grecoreport".
*Bibliography: We don't do extensive bibliographies of scholars like that anywhere on WP. At most, a few of the most prominent publications can be listed (monographs etc.) But these are all short articles, conference talks etc. Half of them are from Poulianos' own journal, "Anthropos" (self-published, not peer-reviewed, obviously a vanity outlet. More than half of its contents are written by the two Poulianos' themselves!) The article claims he wrote five books, but the list doesn't actually contain any of them as far as I've seen, except the PhD dissertation.
I'll keep reverting if anybody tries to reinstate these and other similar elements. And WTF has this to do with "anti-Greek bias" please???!!?
Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes you demand do not coincide with the changes that actually occurred on the article. You just went about and removed anything that you considered "vainglorious." Who cares if you consider certain statements in the article as "vainglorious." If Aris Poulianos was a member of the NYAS, then he was and there is nothing in this world that will change that fact. I don't care how easy it is to get into NYAS or any other organization. Aris Poulianos being a member of NYAS is a fact and you are just going to have to live with it. The same goes for everything else that Aris Poulianos accomplished. I will not stand by idly and watch anal-retentive users such as yourself remove information needlessly. I will make some revisions to the article, but I will not allow the Poulianos article to be reduced to a mere stub. Threatening to revert the article shows that you are very narrow-minded and dishonest. Your reasons for making certain changes may have been sound, but you took your position as "Grand Editor" too far. Do yourself a favor. Step down from your "divine throne" and take a vacation. Deucalionite 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: In the article it is written that: Poulianos has claimed that this discovery renders the Indo-European theory obsolete.  and there is a link to a disambiguation page. Which Indo-European Theory are we referring to? Indeed which theory was he referring to? If we cannot decide, then maybe a sentence pointing out that he himself is confused as to the tenets of the theory that he claims his find to have rendered obsolete might be in order. --5telios 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indoeuropean Theory

message: Please see WP:NFC, section "unacceptable use". That text is copyrighted, we can only ever use very short extracts of such texts for supporting specific claims. Don't worry about verifiability, the source will remain verifiable even in the event that it should ever go offline, because it has been published by a reputable news agency; people could still always look it up in their print archives. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some really good points. Guess I got a bit carried away when I implemented "excessively long copyrighted excerpts" into the article. However, would it be alright if we just kept, like you said, a "short extract"? I mean, wouldn't a "reduced quotation" technically resolve the problem associated with citing excessively long copyrighted data? Deucalionite (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, such quotations would have to be very very short. And why do it anyway? It's not something that's generally encouraged. Especially since the source isn't even in English and the quotes will be just as unreadable for the average reader as the full original. You wouldn't do it in an academic publication either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right Future. Wait, what about translations of "copyrighted extracts"? If you think about it, the copyrighted material is only in Greek. So, if someone were to translate just a chunk of the article, would it be alright to include it in the references section? I'm just asking. Deucalionite (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, a translated text is still under the same copyright as the original, being a "derived work". Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries my friend. You've made your point and I appreciate your help. By the way, any luck on that research you conducted regarding Poulianos's background? Just curious. Deucalionite (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive quotes in footnotes 

message: Whatever it was, it seems to be important in clarifying that evolutionary step from more primitive Homo species to the Homo sapiens crown group (due to the findings' claimed ages and controversial grouping among many Homo species), but the greek proto-humans are not mentioned on any other wiki article beside this one...--94.69.128.204 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archanthropus 

message: I heard and read that this guy is widely known as pariah in the scholastic world and currently no other serious scientist has taken his discoveries for real. It didn't even came somewhere in the news. Unfortunately - which does confirm this - only sources can be found that he and/or his organisation was working on (Eg the pages "aee.gr" and "www.travel-to-halkidiki.com"; or the "Anthropos"-Magazin). What is the current state of his work and actualy how seriously is it taken today?
--84.63.214.171 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/greek-archaeologist-government-suppressing-truth-destroying-evidence-europeans-evolved-separately - Of course some others have pushed the ideas even further, —PaleoNeonate – 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this guy even taken seriously? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aris Poulianos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050204084412/http://aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html to http://www.aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified