Talk:Ages in Chaos

message: Do we have any evidence that Sweeney is a reliable (WP:RS) or prominent (WP:DUE) source on this topic? Neither the Knowledge Computing nor Amazon sites would appear to be RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweeney 

message: *WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" appears to give clear support for redirecting this article, as it has "no reliable, third-party sources".
*Further, it does not appear to meet any of WP:BK#Criteria.
I am therefore restoring DreamGuy's redirect. If anybody wishes to dispute this, then we can take it to WP:AFD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability, sources & redirect 

message: The material on David Rohl's  & Peter James' chronologies does not provide any sourced linkage to Velikovsky. Unless this linkage can be verified with a RS, it is irrelevant & should be removed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of 'Other chronological revisions [purportedly] inspired by Velikovsky' 

message: I removed the following from the 'Further reading section:
William H. Stiebing, Jr., Pensée IVR 5 (Fall 1973): 10–12;
idem, Pensée IVR 10 (Winter 1974–75): 24-26;
idem, KRONOS 7/3 (Spring 1982): 72–74;
Peter James, S.I.S. Review 3 (1979): 48–55;
Michael Jones, S.I.S. Review 6/1–3 (1982): 27–33
I would suggest that they not be re-included without at least (i) article titles (rather important for establishing relevance) & (ii) unabbreviated periodical titles (important for finding them). (Incidentally,  'idem'-type references are frowned upon in Wikipedia, as they easily get broken when new refs are added.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptic further reading 

message: At some stage I'll go through and include Bauer's specific criticisms of Velikovsky's specific claims, from the copy of his book available online through Google Books. This will however not be for at least a couple of days (as I've some more pressing real-world commitments in the mean time). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bauer on Velikovsky 

message: This article has been in something like its present form since April 2009, without any attempt to reduce it to a redirect or anything quite as drastic.  It has undergone significant improvement by a number of editors since then.  Discussion on this talk page stopped around April 2009.  It is highly disruptive to reduce it to a redirect without further discussion.  If someone had just wanted to restore the notability flag and resume discusson, fair enough.  It may have been discussed at length 2 years ago, but the consensus seemed to be to keep. PatGallacher (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce to redirect? 

message: I have tagged the lead as giving ridiculously WP:UNDUE weight to Velikovsky's claims, over the WP:SECONDARY commentary on them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 6.5:1 self-description/recap over WP:SECONDARY commentary is "a huge disparity". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV lead 

message: In spite of the claim that criticisms have been 'addressed', I would note that:
#The article is somewhere around 3/4 to 4/5 over before the second third-party source is  even introduced. This demonstrates blatant violation of WP:PSTS, and largely undercuts any claims of notability.
#The majority of this article is not about the book Ages in Chaos, but is rather a summary of other books that Velikovsky wrote, or criticisms of Velikovsky's claims in general.
This does not appear to address the criticisms of this article.HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Velikovsky is known for little other than said "writings on ancient history", it would seem that the correct "single article" in question is Immanuel Velikovsky itself, not one titled for an individual book. It is NOT "stretching it" to suggest that giving a summary of a single work more space than criticism of all Velikovsky's writings is grossly WP:UNDUE, particualry given the level of criticism. You have had two years to clean up this  -- the merger discussion of which is not just merited, but long overdue. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I think that a claimed cause of "innumerable catastrophes which were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world" can reasonably be considered part of "ancient history" (and the lead of Immanuel Velikovsky explicitly places the book in this context). I would note that Worlds in Collision is not nearly as imbalanced as this article. What part of "I would therefore suggest reducing the article to a stub or redirect until such time as somebody has the time/knowledge/access-to-reliable sources to perform such a rewrite" & the numerous tags on it led you to the preposterous conclusion that "it had achieved some stability"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms addressed? 

message: David Rohl is a "former director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS) ["founded by researchers formerly connected with the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) whose original purpose was to examine and debate the revisionist theories of Immanuel Velikovsky"] who from the 1980s has put forth several unconventional theories [2] revising the chronology of Ancient Egypt and Israel to form an alternative new chronology." It would appear therefore that he is neither a particularly independent source on Velikovsky's work, nor a non-WP:FRINGE one (and thus not a WP:RS). The fact that A Test of Time appears to be a glossy 'book of the TV series' (it is in fact subtitled 'A Channel Four Book' on Amazon), rather than an academic textbook or similar, further detracts from is claim to reliability. I am therefore tagging this source, for eventual removal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Rohl 

message: I know we don't usually use self-published sources on Wikipedia, but I suggest we can make an exception with Lorton's article on Hatshepsut as it does read like a serious piece of scholarship, also this article has been criticised for pro-Velikovsky bias, so it would be ironic to delete an anti-Velikovsky source.  Rohl can be treated as a reliable source about his own views. PatGallacher (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorton etc.