Talk:Barry Fell

message: Fell's work clearly falls into the category of pseudoscience so the category is appropriate. If you think that the existence of this category violates NPOV, then you should make an argument for the deletion of the category. On my reading of the NPOV policy, the existence of this category does not violate NPOV.Bill 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is abundantly clear (even from a simple google search) that Fell's hypotheses fall into the category of pseudoarchaeology. Codex may like the theories, but they are kookery nonetheless. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the only one who disagrees, there are definitely other authors who have accepted at least some of his data, even if other of his flakier theories have received less support.  This is a biographical article, not about any single archaeological theory, and this category does not conform to WP:NPOV, since citable opinion is divided and its purpose is only an attempt to utterly discredit everything he has ever done no matter what, much like ad hominem. The 'scientific theory' mentioned on the cat page means having a hypothesis and testing it; it's too bad that often those who do get ostracised and blacklisted as 'pseudo' for reasons of political agenda, when that itself is no valid part of the scientific process. I don't know if this will ultimately pass the NPOV ("pillar of wikipedia") test...  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience

message: PIA could mean a pious, devout woman in either Latin or Spanish. The word has the same meaning in both languages. Reading it as an Arabic word in Phoenician characters, as Fell does, is as farfetched and implausible as you can get. Das Baz 22:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments of Das Baz are original research.  But given that Phoenecian and Arabic are both in the Semitic language family and use similar scripts, and came from the same part of the world, how far fetched is it?  Likewise with the word GUIN meaning "white in P-celtic".  Ever heard of a pen-guin? ("White head" in Welsh) Ever heard of Guinevere?  ("White wave" in Welsh).  At any rate, one's agreement or disagreement with Fell's translations doesn't belong here unless it is a reference to a published criticism.Cadwallader (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PIA

message: Recent DNA findings have said that the original people of the British Isles, including Ireland for these purposes, are related to Basques. Basques are essentially the aboriginal people of France/Spain. Others have said, including Fell, that what is now Spain/Portugal was part of the Phoenaecian/Carthaginian trading system which did the shipping/fighting for the Eastern empires such as Egypt and Persia.
As for Daz Baz, surely you are aware of the historical connections betweem Latin and Phoenaecian? You are also aware that the Vikings dumped an amount of slaves on what is now Iceland? Those slaves were taken from what is now Ireland. Surely some of those slaves could have made it to what is now Newfoundland and settled there. If they were not the first there, they would have blended in and influenced whhat was already there. What Fell said about "PIA" is not so far-fetched in that context, the language influences. This may sound speculative, but it is surely better than those who just dismiss Fell out of hand as a crackpot.
JBDay 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about recent DNA findings?

message: The present revision of the article uses several obvious devices to marginalize Dr. Fell's credibility with regard to his work on epigraphy, and is thus highly POV.
1. It presents his epigraphic work as completely detached from his academic career, when the two were closely combined from the beginning of his research in the Pacific islands in the 1930's and 40's until the end of his life.  Ie. the article leads us to believe he was a "respected professional" marine biologist at Harvard, but an amateur kook epigrapher.  
It is hard to imagine that a respected Harvard Professor would have a secret life publishing pseudo-scientific theories and still keep his job.  The qualities that earned him professional respect and tenure at the most prestigious university in America in one field would tend to carry over into other interests.  Anyone who has read his books can see that.
Furthermore, there are probably less than five "professional epigraphers" paid to teach nothing but epigraphy in the world.  Very few of the contributors to the study of epigraphy have been paid to do so as "professionals", as there are few institutions looking to hire an "epigrapher".  Rather, certain archaeologists consider him to have invaded their turf, and therefore dismiss him as an "amateur".
2. The article presents one of the weakest of his epigraphic identifications as typical of all of his work, and doesn't present the full argument in favor of that case. This is the "straw man argument".
3. It makes an "appeal to consensus" as if all academics reject the work of Dr. Fell, which is not true.  It appears that certain American academics reject Dr. Fell's work because it doesn't conform to the orthodoxy of no pre-Columbian contact.  However, other European academics have no problem recognizing the importance of Dr. Fell's work in Ogham epigraphy - as they don't have a sacred cow at stake.
Michael Crichton said it well:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.Michael Crichton, from the speech "Aliens Cause Global Warming", given at Caltech, Pasadena, CA, January 17, 2003, reprinted here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html"
It should also be remembered that most of the pioneering work on epigraphy that is now taught by academics was originally published by "amateurs" such as Georg Fabricius - literature professor, Theodor Mommsen - classicist.  Like Fell, these men were multi-talented tenured professors whose interests and academic work delved into a number of far-fetched areas.
Like the now-recognized 19th-century epigrapher Franz Cumont, who was denied tenure because his discoveries were unorthodox, Dr. Fell's work is scornfully rejected by career archaeologists who still believe the world is flat.
So, how do we write a NPOV article about Dr. Fell's contributions to the field of epigraphy?  Describe them without deliberately marginalizing them, and note any published rejections of his theory by other academics. (To be fair, maybe we should only accept criticism from "professional" epigraphers...)  Anonymous appeals to consensus are rubbish.
Cadwallader (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fell was a tenured professor, it didn't matter what rubbish he wrote so long as it wasn't illegal, he couldn't be fired.
The article makes it clear his interest in epigrapny dates back to at least 1940. He is an amateur (as Cadwallader seems to admit) and very much of an amateur when he writes about archaeology.  What he writes about European archaeology shows his lack of understanding, and his attempts to apply that to North America... it's not surprising that archaeologists have not spent much time commenting on his claims.  The West Virginia claims are among his best known so it is not suprising that the article mentions them, although one might argue that the article should also say that they have been rebutted. Amercian archaeologists reject his work because it is bad, full stop. I'm interested in the names of the European academics who allegedly support him.
An NPOV article would not, by the way, have comments such as "However, there have been no academic publications that have critiqued or refuted his methods or conclusions. Rather, Dr. Fell's work has been simply ignored or ridiculed in popular literature such as that of Stephen Williams."  -- admittedly he does get dismissed (for good reason) summarily at times, but the statement is misleading and Williams doesn't ignore him or just ridicule him.Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marginalisation

message: the massive bias of this article is clear from reading just above - esp the thoughtful review
at the end which is then, immediately , heavily trashed...
what that does is put into suspicion any wiki article at all, as when, you see manic, heavy
trashing of a person who did credible excellent work, being trashed as Dr Fell...this proves
the overwhelming additional point, that the halls of academe are awash with non thinking, and
the uneducated... showing their inability to think in regard to Dr Fell's clearly "proven" work
in epigraphy....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.52 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: see just above

message: Perhaps a way out of this impasse is to go beyond the focus on Barry Fell and develop an article on Hyperdiffusionism or Trans-Atlantic Diffusionism or New-World Diffusionism, that would present it as an example of a notable minority point of view.  This procedure is outlined in the Neutral Point of View policy.  In such an article the claims of its advocates and critics could be fairly presented and "though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."  Although I wouldn't represent it as a perfect example, this approach is tried at New Chronology (Fomenko).  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view and the esssay WP:Crit -- of course, if this was split off, the Fell article would have to be little more than a comment on his career and a list of publications, and watched to make sure it stayed that way. And I don't see how the problem of an uncivil editor would be avoided that way.Doug Weller (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let's not create a WP:POV fork. This article is now quite reasonable. If there is a bit of sourced material to add to the Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact article, then good. One sentence would probably be adequate, with a link to this page. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is a new article in order?

message: I don't have a problem with being quoted in Wikipedia, though reading about how I telephoned someone recently comes as a genuine surprise.  I don't approve of such ego-centric nonsense.  My web-site and contact information is public knowledge and if ANYONE has a question, comment, or wishes further information they should not hesitate to contact me.  Unfortunately I can't invest the time to "correct" Wikipedia entries or I wouldn't have any time left for other writing.(Rdflavin (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Fell and Flavin

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Barry Fell. 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/20130731235630/http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/readings/feder.pdf to http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/readings/feder.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Barry Fell. 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/20080709172608/http://www.reviewofarchaeology.com/pastissues.html to http://www.reviewofarchaeology.com/pastissues.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) 07:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified