Talk:Ivan Van Sertima

message: What is the reason for deleting this section: Academic Response To Criticism? The criticism from Glyn Daniels, whose work was not in the field of mexican archeology, is allowed to remain in Wikipedia, while an expert in Mexican archeology, Clarence Weiant, has his response deleted. If there's no reason according to Wikipedia policy, then the removal of the Academic Response To Criticism should be considered vandalism.  
- =Academic Response To Criticism=   
- In response to Glyn Daniels' review, Dr. Clarence Weiant, who worked in Mexican archeology for the National  
Sandmadd (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing this line: "Weiant also wrote numerous articles on extrasensory perception and was an active member of the American Society for Psychical Research. In 1959 he presented the paper Anthropology and Parapsychology at an annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Mexico City. It was based on his 1939 discovery of the cache of figurines at Tres Zapotes through what he believed to be the clairvoyance of Emilio Tamago, a peasant worker.[13]"  This article is about van Sertima, not Weiant. On a side note, this article needs to be rewritten for neutrality - it's practically oozing with racist undertones. Jgmoneill (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use Weiant's letter without some context about Weiant, and that has to include the above. Dougweller (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If his father's surname was Obermuller, where did the name "Van Sertima" come from? Sounds a little phoney to me. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is rather a loosey-goosey source; as it is given, it does not list Ivan as one of F's children and is vague about connections.Parkwells (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I think you're right. I initiated a move request.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Surname

message: Shouldn't the article read that he was a Guinese historian, rather than a British? 
vap (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was said to have retained his British citizenship.Parkwells (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: British?

message: I fail to see how this article passes WP:BIO. 
Sertima doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF, and while his Olmec theory is notable, we already have an article about it, at Olmec alternative origin speculations. 
I see no need for a biography article on top of that, what this article is doing is
:(a) duplicate the scope of 'Olmec alternative origin speculations'
:(b) invite uncalled-for hagiography and contention
Just because somebody wrote a book worth covering on Wikipedia doesn't mean they pass WP:BIO. This is a very widespread misconception. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: This article needs a total rewrite by someone expert in African anthropologies. In its current form, it's little more than a criticism forum targeting a minor area of van Sertima's work and acting as a platform for broader anti-African hate. The suggestion that van Sertima is primarily known for his Ancient Egyptian exploration of the New World theory is absurd to anyone knowledgeable in the field. 
I've removed a few of the scare quotes and stray parenthetical commentary, and also a suggestion that the African Renaissance, a major contemporary political concept, is incorrectly named. Hopefully an expert can produce a fuller, balanced article soon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.224.131 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: There is a complaint about balance (and balance is good), but how do you balance a scholar who identifies African origins based on apparent broad flat noses? (as if all Africans have flat noses) So it will be hard to find RS from outside Afrocentrism to say positive things about this work.  But using another pseudo historian to vouch for the work of a pseudo historian is not the soln. I suggest we find a nuanced critique of his work point by point (if it exist) as opposed to just praise it blindly or wash it out blindly. And we should not in this search exclude other Afrocentrics after all there is no ban on any one ideology on Wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we added Clarence that is not really an issue, BUT where Truth is adding it is incorrect. Also a Google search of Clarence does not come back favorable. Guess who is going on about him? Yipe the Ivan clique and that weakens things a tad--Inayity (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't belong in the lead. We are not trying to 'balance', we are trying to follow WP:NPOV. And Weiant was a ceramicist, not an expert in Olmec heads, etc. As well of course as being a psychic archaeologist. He is not a reliable source for Olmec heads. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But he does not have to be a RS on Olmec heads but a RS for his personal opinion of Van Sertima. In that capacity I think it can be included in the body of article.--Inayity (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But he isn't an expert on "egyptology, African history, oceanography, astronomy, botany, rare Arabic and Chinese manuscripts, the letters and journals of early American explorers, and the observations of physical anthropologist" and his statement "As one who has been immersed in Mexican archaeology for some forty years, and who participated in the excavation of the first giant heads," is misleading. He wasn't 'immersed' in Mexican archaeology for forty years. During some of the time he was actually doing archaeology he was doing other things, ie  "Weiant pursued careers in chemical engineering (1910-1945) and parapsychology (1959-1978) as well." - although he was 'involved' perhaps for that length of time both in teaching and practical work, just as he was involved in chiropracty virtually all of his life. And participating in an excavation of the Olmec heads does not make him an expert as his statement seems to suggest. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I noted from the website for Van Sertima they seem to be making him out to be.--Inayity (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you balance Pseudo history? 

message: Changing the lead without discussion here is not appropriate. Removing material (again) that has been replaced without discussion here first is highly inappropriate. The material Truth777333 has attempted to remove twice:
He was best known for his Olmec alternative origin speculations, a brand of pre-Columbian contact theory, which he proposed in his book They Came Before Columbus (1976). While his Olmec theory has "spread widely in African American community, both lay and scholarly", it was mostly ignored in Mesoamericanist scholarship, or else dismissed as Afrocentric pseudohistory to the effect of "robbing native American cultures".
The edit summaries:
removed redundant information. This information is already mentioned under the paragraph entitled :Reception. Therefore no need to have it twice
I insist this is not included twice. It creates an unbalanced biased view of the scholar. don't agree that this information has to be in the article twice. What is the next step for compromise
My edit summaries when I restored the information:
"Summary belongs in lead"
"once reverted do not replace material, take it to talk page see WP:BRD, as for content of lead see WP:LEAD
The material belongs in the lead per WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
Note the lead should contain content which is covered in the remainder of the article thus a summary in the lead is appropriate per MOS. The lead should include why the subject is notable (precisely what "he is best known for covers). The view WP presents of the scholar should reflect that of reliable sources and conform to WP:FRINGE:  A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is.; Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. and WP:PSCI:  The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This is precisely what the lead does by describing the lay popularity of his ideas and the mainstream scientific viewpoint. Read WP:NPOV and see what it really means, an editors ideas of bias are not what counts, what reliable sources say and the majority scientific viewpoint hold are what WP relies on. See WP:DUE and WP:VALID in particular. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why isnt this in the lead of others who have attributed to the Olmec alternative theories. Please refer to  Leo Wiener, Jose Melger, Clyde Ahmad Winters,are all known for supporting this view. I dont see this in their leads. Only on Ivan Van Sertima's page.(Truth777333 (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition Ivan Van Sertima is well known for other concepts other than what you have chosen to disclose in the lead. As I have indicated before, it is now proven that Blacks were the first peoples in  America  so why is notice of his criticism even "relevant" at this juncture.  The critics have been proven wrong by scientific anthropological evidence supported by "mainstream" scholars.  Native Americans have been proven to be a mixed race of Africans and Mongolians. Therefore the earlier critisms namely " robbing native americas of their culture" are no longer valid.  (Truth777333 (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Truth77733 we are not here to discuss our personal opinions only insert material according to Wikipedia policy, this includes RS. If Ivan is know for other things we should include them. Right now I am only editing Van Sertima not Leo, Jose, or Clyde, and you can raise those issues on their pages. As I agree there needs to be balance across wikipedia.--Inayity (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Deal with other articles on their talk pages, the condition of other articles does not dictate how this article is to be edited, policies and guidelines do. Personal opinions are irrelevant. Reliable sources are what WP relies on. If there are reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of other reasons Sertima is notable present those sources and suggest the material you wish to include. Remember that WP:NPOV is clear on due weight, giving equal validity and pseudoscience. WP:RS provides guidance regarding scholarly sources, questionable sources, use of a source by other high quality sources and academic consensus. WP:FRINGE applies to the ideas of Sertima until the scientific consensus reflects general acceptance of his ideas (I don't see them even recieving serious consideration). An editor's opinion about what is biased is irrelevant what counts is what is in high quality reliable sources so "notice of his criticism" is relevant as it comes from RS. What an editor contends has been "proven" needs support from reliable sources and evidence of acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is arguing about how advance African culture was. That's irrelevant to this discussion. Truth777333 is simply doing web searches and hasn't found any academic books or papers, just a fringe article by the science editor of Softpedia and an interview with Walter Neves which he doesn't understand. So far as I know, van Sertima never suggested that there was an African migration 14,000 years ago, he was arguing that the creators of the Olmec heads came from Africa in historical times. There is no view within the mainstream that the Americas were ever inhabited by Africans, although the main mainstream view is that all our ancestors came from Africa. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

text: As for your suggestion, no. It should be like Sitchin's article. It needs to make it clear that this is not an accepted opinion. You should get that from the lead, not have to read down through the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusations Truth is throwing does not float. David Irving (he is white) lead is not much different. Gadaffi, Meles Zenawi, Amiri Baraka all these leads have in negative things. And I would be the first to scream RACISM, if it was the issue here. --Inayity (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion should be on content, not opinions and interpretations of editors. Content needs to reflect mainstream scientific consensus and be sourced from reliable sources. I tire of repeating myself. Provide suggested content and reliable sources. If Neves has "proved" anything and it is interpreted in some particular way find the reliable source that supports this. Sertima's views need to be clearly presented as fringe (read the policies before further posting) and the mainstream consensus and level of acceptance of Sertima's theories need presentation clearly and prominently per policies. Further discussion should be supported by policy and reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to lead without discussion here 

message: My deletion of extraneous information about Clarence Weiant in the Notes section was reversed. The reason given was that the Note was "relevant to his comment on archaeology". However, there is nothing in the Notes section or anywhere else on this page about context for Glyn Daniel. Glyn Daniel lacks the background for criticizing Van Sertima. Specifically, Glyn Daniel never published in the field of pre-Columbian history. Neither did he conduct original research/archeological digs in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica as did Clarence Weiant. Yet, Clarence Weiant is the only critic disparaged on Van Sertima's page- a violation of Wikipedia's pillars. All sources cited on this page should be treated equally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandmadd (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Glyn Daniel was selected for commentary on the book by The New York Times. Since an extensive quote of Weiant is provided it is appropriate to provide some context for his commentary, note this is from a reliable source. All sources should be evaluated for meeting WP:RS criteria and if cited sources are discussed in reliable sources such discussion is appropriate. An editors opinions or original research has no place in the article, however should an RS state that Daniel is not qualified to critique Van Sertima that might be included. In my experience the NYT generally selects those they choose to review books fairly carefully and I think their judgement is widely respected on the matter of book reviews this carries quite a bit more weight than a WP editors assessment. Likewise the Smithsonian is widely respected for evaluation of historical and archealogical figures, meaning what they wrote about someone who is quoted provides context and helps a reader evaluate the commentary. Before making assertions about violations of WP's pillars take the time to read some policies (at least the page you type a comment here on and sign your post). - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I find it strange that no mention is made of the fact that Weiant has a degree in anthropology and a PhD in archaeology http://anthropology.si.edu/olmec/english/archaeologists/weiant.htm. Instead his later work as a chiropractic is mentioned along with the fact that he "worked as an assistant archaeologist". Tayedot (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the his PhD to the note. The content might also be revised. His work as a chiropractor seems irrelevant and the description as worked as an assistant archeologist doesn't seem quite right for someone with a PhD in the field. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's correct however, that's what the source says. His main career was as a chiropractor and that is what he is best known for, eg "Clarence Wolsey Weiant D C., Ph D Clarence Wolsey Weiant pioneer chiropractor who cut a path for the profession m its formulatlve years toward the sciences" - note also  that Colin Wilson says "The archaeologist Clarence Weiant described how the Montagnais Indians of eastern Canada are able to contact distant friends and relatives by telepathy.". If we mention him we can't just say the guy had a PhD in archaeology as it's a lot more complicated than that. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes: (Clarence Weiant) 

message: This line means All of Van Setima's work was criticized by ALL academics? or it it some? Is this the case? he wrote a book called 1986, Great African Thinkers, Cheikh Anta Diop was that also criticized. I think the section needs a little more balance. As It seems to carry too much of his detractors POV. I would like to see more balance. --Inayity (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a simple factual statement. No one would read it as all academics. He's fringe, that needs to be clear, right? Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is let the reader decide because I am pretty sure Afrocentrics who happen to also be academics at key universities such as Molefi Asante certainly do not agree. The other issue is just washing people out with fringe is anti-academic, let the evidence speak for itself. Next thing saying Egyptians are Africans would just get filed under fringe also.--Inayity (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it as virtually all, universally known to anyone who is serious, that is why we have words like MOST, and SOME. It is all over wikipedia (Some Scholars think), Most scholars agree. We do not take controversial topics and say Scholars disagree. Unless we are saying all those Afrocentrics and Pro-Africanist are not scholars also.--Inayity (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Back in the day when Van Sertima's lectures were played on Pacifica stations regularly, anyone who cared to could tune in and discover that the poor old man was a crackpot. He was finally excluded from Pacifica because the broadcasters who had the unenviable position of bookending him were sick and tired of having to deal with call-ins from people who were frustrated that they couldn't call in to Van Sertima. The last year or so consisted of endless ranting from people who had confused Melanin and Melatonin and, well, the result was chaotic to put it mildly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Sertima's work has been criticized by academics 

message: This is why I am having a problem. African origin of Mesoamerican culture? is that what he said cuz I did not actually read the book. After reading this article I am actually Not sure what he is saying. Did he say African created mesoamerican culture, or did he say Africans influence a culture that was already in existence. Just like Rome was influenced by Greece? I think I would like to hear from someone who read the book. B/c there is a world of difference and I am not clear from reading. Fringe or not, we must still represent what is what. --Inayity (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it doesnt matter which of those he said cause they both run counter to all available evidence. His major critics in Mesoamerican study clearly critique him for making the former claim, and not the latter. Combating Eurocentrism is good, pseudoscience is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Look what i found, exactly the same thing I am complaining about.  Judged without proper review--Inayity (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd expect him to say that and it's nonsense. He also claims that Indians eating Africans wouldn't happen, despite the fact that it actually did. What's ironic is his statement that some critics were venomous. I doubt you've read van Sertima's response to his critics in Early America Revisited, but I have and it was laden with vitriol. van Sertima did say Africans settled in plan colonies in the Americas and heavily influenced the culture, including in particular the Olmec. He writes as though there was no serious Olmec culture before his African colonists. I don't know of any Mesoamerican specialists who take him seriously. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: With that in mind I must say that the section on reception is still lacking in full representation. It does not gives space to the article you read (and I did not read) but it should be included to reply to some of the claims. I think this book is over used "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs" and I do not believe that line is needed in the lead. It is suffice to say he is fringe without given further weight to one opinion. I think telling people they were discovered by Columbus is far worst than what Van Sertima is doing, so this robbing thing is unfair in the lead (based on what I have read). I think the link I gave to Asante's position should also be included to balance out some of the critiques. And my issue is very basic. I would like this article to be more balanced (forget about pro- or against) but anyone should come here and read it and get an honest total view of what is what. Many people discuss Van Sertima (from both camps) and most are devoid of the facts. I am no fan, but I still want to know what is what with neutrality. --Inayity (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think Van Sertima should be credited as bring the entire Olmec civilization to a broader audience. I dont think it was given this attention until he brought it up. (ref for this is in the Olmec article)--Inayity (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would he be credited for that? It is not as if he has a broad audience. And yes, Olmecs was given as much attention before he wrote as after. If anything he was a late comer and it would take a very good source to claim otherwise. He has been influential within afrocentricity to be sure, but approaching zero influence outside. We can certainly mention his influence in African and Afrocentric studies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I look forward to a good rewrite that gives weight as due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What is important now is the article. I think the line about Robbing Native is undue weight and should be removed. It is already stated that it is Fringe. But too much emphasis on this "robbing thing". The next issue I think we need to balance the critique with the counters, such as Asante. I will skip getting into Afrocentrism vs Eurocentrism or even Myth history vs Anti-Eurocentrism. My sole concern is NPOV, and that people can read this article and be able to see the critique, the counter, and have clarity around what he said vs what his detractors think he said or wished he said. Just write it with everything crystal clear an no hint of editor bias. that section needs a re-write anyway cuz it really does not flow.--Inayity (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Early America Revisited is already included, I think the responses to the critique listed would then be better than saying, he responded in HISown publication. I do not think Wiki should have this kind of bias. Clearly written by detractors and not with NPOV. The sections seems to have one intention, look how rubbish this man's work is. --Inayity (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  African origin of Mesoamerican culture? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ivan Van Sertima. 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/20090922192359/http://blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5725/2009-05-30.html to http://blackstarnews.com/news/135/ARTICLE/5725/2009-05-30.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) 06:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ivan Van Sertima. 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/20050923193930/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F04%2F07%2F0411250 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F04%2F07%2F0411250
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) 20:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion