Talk:Howard Vyse

message: Looking at the article for William Wentworth, the second Earl, it states that he died without issue.  As there is no citation other than the DNB article which cites Thomas, I believe that fact and source should take precedence. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing father of Lucy Wentworth to Thomas 

message: DNB was the source, and a Google search of Vyse 1853 shows multiple instances, and this is the closest as authoritative Vyse Gentleman's Magazine. Actually, this cite's Lucy the daughter of Thomas (see above)-- billinghurst (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of Vyse

message: I tried to rewrite the paragraph on the theory that he wrote the pyramid inscriptions himself. i am familiar with this idea, but i think it needs to be worded less emphatically to meet NPOV. Its a small minority, i dont believe many mainstream egyptologists subscribe to it, but i do believe it deserves entry as a minor but notable interpretation. if i butchered it while attempting npov, all errors are mine. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the whole thing. It's completely WP:UNDUE in this article, even Graham Hancock says it's wrong, the inscriptions are in places that could only have been reached during construction. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to re-include the controversy section, but it should be mentioned. Just because one person who's built his entire career, reputation and fortune through the sale of books based on the idea that Vyse didn't create a forgery says that it is authentic, it doesn't mean that it is. Taggart.BBS (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the other way around. I don't know who you think has built his career around the idea that there was no forgery - perhaps you could name the Egyptologists who think it was actually a forgery? Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that what remained in support of his work was unsourced and contained overly promotional language. Until someone can rewrite this from a scholarly, neutral point of view, with alternative theories given due weight, i think the content should be removed. better to not have anything, than unsourced statements open to debate. by the way, who said Graham Hancock was a reliable source on this, and where is the citation stating that the inscriptions could not be reached except during construction? I say, rebuild this section source by source.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt at NPOV

message: I have added links to online full text scans of all three volumes of "Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, as found on archive.org. Since the old link to volume 3 of this work, which pointed to google books, did not work in my country, I have removed the old link. In case anyone disagrees, I have retained it here:
* Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, published London, 4to., two volumes, 1840.
* Appendix to Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837 published London, 4to., 1842, volume three, 1842.  Devoted to Perring's researches. Full text at Google Books.
GuyHill (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full text to all three volumes of "Operations Carried on ..." 

message: Ok - I agree with the IP 5.81. I see no reason why Scott Creighton's book 'The Great Pyramid Hoax' (which I recently finished reading) should not be cited in this article which is about Howard Vyse. Why should Creighton's book require a specialist Egyptologist to cite it before it can be cited here on Wiki when it's not a book about Egyptology but rather a book about the life of Vyse and his part in a potential fraud? That's like saying only mathematicians or other scientists can write a biography on Einstein or Newton before their work can be cited here on Wiki. Completely ridiculous. Like the IP above said already, this book is a biography of this guy Vyse and is probably the only book of its kind to fully explore the life and times of this guy. It totally deserves to be and should be cited in this article about Vyse. Over and above which - this Wiki article clearly has lifted a lot of new stuff, more recent material about Vyse's life straight from Creighton's book. It's just not right that Creighton's research/book is not being given due recognition or at least cited in the reference section. Or is their something else I am missing here?72.43.174.43 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are missing, and I've missed it also, is that IP 5.81 and 95.151 are both editing from Glasgow and are almost certainly Creighton. If he continues to edit the article it may have to be protected again. Is the new stuff by one of the IPs?  Anyway, there's a policy reason, see WP:UNDUE. Maybe if he were a recognised expert, but he isn't. It needs discussion in reliably published sources first. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell, not only is the new stuff all from Creighton, he's using a 3rd IP, User:Khruner, are you following this?Doug Weller talk 07:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, he's also the IP that started this thread pushing his own book. Pinging another editor who's been in this thread, User:Joe Roe. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And reading back through, Joe asked one of the IPs if he was Creighton but got no response. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it looks like a duck to me. But the additions by the IP since the page was un-protected seem okay. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Hi - our sources need to be by recognised experts in most cases, see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. That's the way we work. And the Sitchin allegations aren't really biographical. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. Hmm, little to add to what was already pointed out in the previous subsection... I'd like to read some scholarly review of Creighton's book. And Lorraine Evans clearly isn't one of them. Khruner (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break