Talk:Robert Lomas

message: I note that the controversy section has devolved into a "who likes Lomas and who doesn't" sniping contest.  Much of what was added was POV... on both sides of the argument.  First, many of the statements were not about Lomas or his work, but about the people commenting on it (such as the statements about the "United Grand Lodge of America being critical of AASR SJ.)  (by the way... what is the UGLA?  As far as I know there is no such beast?... at least not in regular recognized Masonry... but I digress).  Anyway... I have pared the section back to plain verifyable statements of Fact... some people do not agree with Lomas (short list), others do agree (short list).  If you need to expand on these facts, please keep focused on positive and negative comments about LOMAS and his work... not positive and negative comments about the commentators. Blueboar 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and POV 

message: There seems to be atrend occurring whereby one or two editors of various articles relating to freemasonry are choosing to insert highly POV material into encyclopedic discussions.  Whatever incidents may have caused the formation of the Unite Grand Lodge of America, wiki is not a soapbox for addressing these concerns.  A number of UGLA persons have lamented in various foums how due process is not being followed in various US jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and then here on wiki we see what appears to be a UGLA supporter trying defy community guidelines regarding how the encyclopedia should be modified.  For example, the need for NPOV, and the need to avoid personal attacks.--Vidkun 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trend 

message: My brothers... irregular or regular as you choose...
I would like to ask you all to back up a second and think.  This article is a biographical sketch of Robert Lomas.  It needs to focus ON Mr. Lomas, and not on what we may think about him or his work.  Now, I think the "controversy" section is valid, but only because his work has engendered controversy.  We need to keep this NPOV.  It is fair to say that X group thinks Lomas's theory is flawed, while Y group diagrees and thinks his theory is valid.  The statements need to be cited, but they are fair statements. It is not fair or NPOV to say B group thinks that C group is full of crap or visa versa.  Please... let's keep this focused on Mr. Lomas and his theories and not on our personal agendas.  This relates to both Lomas supporters and Lomas detractors.  If you need to do so, please read WP:NPOV.  Finally... Please remember that this is not a lodge meeting.  Regularity does not matter here.  NONE of us are Masons here... we are all nothing but fellow editors.  As such we should be civil and work together to create a good article.  I'll step off my soapbox now.  Thank you. Blueboar 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you look at the history, it started out as a vanity page.  The original read like a promo for the Hiram Key. Blueboar 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV again 

message: I've added disambiguation to the intro, Lomas is a Business lecturer not a profesisonal historian, the intro as it stood lent more weight to his authority than was appropriate.
The article needs a more complete list of his work, at the moment it focusses only on Masonic titles, his marketing and IT work needs to be listed as well, unfortunately his own website doesn't list them.
I've removed the UGLA link as linkspam.  It's not referred to in the article and it looks to be irregular, associating him with it does him a dis-service.
This needs a lot of structural work and some content work to reduce POV, at the moment it is a vanity page but it is notable enough to need to be here.ALR 13:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments 

message: It poses little impact to the article itself, but the interview of Martin Faulks was conducted by "Peter Gower"???  Peter Gower is the name used in a number of Masonic exposes, and occasionally as the example name in some Masonic cypher books and monitorial works instead of "Mr. A. . . B. . .", and is said to be a corruption of Pythogoras.  That interview is considered a serious piece of work?--Vidkun 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the link the interview was for 'The Ashlar', which is a Scots Masonic magazine.  I get the mag and don't recall the article, but it can be pretty dry sometimes with lots of detailed histories of temples and museums.  Notwithstanding that I don't recall having seen the name in anything else, except as a user name of someone who did some flyby edits in a number of articles.  The section needs reworded as it's pretty POV at the moment, in fact the wording probably constitutes weaseling.  I don't know of many serious Masons who place much value in Lomas' work and given that he's not a professional historian then it's a fair stretch of the imagination to come up with the link.ALR 19:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional question 

message: The folling lines were added to the end of the "controversy" section:
*Lomas has also proven his critics from detailing his technique upon the Megalithic  Yard. As well the fact that columbus was not the first to find America.
I have removed them not because I disagree in any way... but because I have no idea what they are trying to say... the sentence structure of the first sentence is so muddled that it makes no sense... does it mean Lomas proved his critics wrong?  Did he prove them right?  What does "proven from detailing" mean?  And what is Lomas's technique on the Megalithic Yard? etc.Blueboar 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megalithic Yard and Columbus 

message: I am wondering if we really need such in depth descriptions of Lomas's books ... I think these would work better as seperate articles on each book.  We could provide a shorter synopsis here if it is needed. Blueboar 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline of books 

message: I think the article is much less POV now, so I have removed the tag.  If you object, replace it, but please say why. Blueboar 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of NPOV tag 

message: This section takes up a great deal of the article and is completely unreferenced.  I don't think this much detail is necessary - pertinent points covered in secondary sources can be worked in to the prose of the article.  Does anyone know offhand where these summaries might have come from or what references were used to write them?  What do you think of drastically shortening that bit? Shell babelfish 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis of Books 

message: Continuing on the discussion above, we now seem to be edit warring over whether to categorize Lomas as a "Historian of Freemasonry".  Lomas's books are clearly pseudohistory.  His works are conjectural and filled with suppositional leaps of logic (The Ancient Egyptians had certain beliefs... suppose that these beliefs influenced early Christianity... Now suppose that the early Christians had hidden texts that demonstrate this which they hid under the ruins of the Temple... The Knights Templars might have found them... since there is a legend that the Freemasons might be decendants of the Templars... therefore there is a direct connection between the Ancient Egyptians and Freemasonry).  This is not History!  This is pseudohistory.  We can not call Lomas a "Historian of Freemasonry".  Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculative fiction is fine as a category. It verges on pseudohistory but there is no reason to include such a pejorative term in a biography of a living person whose works are clearly distinguishable from mainstream history.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: This article seems unbalanced.  There is info on his background - then all else refers to 'controversies'.  Usually, controversy accompanies influence; where is the information on this?  I added a couple of citation requests because as it stands, the text in the controversies section appears to present synth and original research. 
Some demonstration of his influence is given here - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xmkJmYkwMWAC&lpg=PA97&dq=robert%20lomas&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false
-- Zac  Δ  talk! 15:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While Lomas is a "serious and objective academic" in business studies and solid state physics, few would agree in the context of Masonic History, your reference seems highly speculative itself. However, the "Controversies" heading seems POV. Lomas is indeed controversial, but references are harder to find. Quatuor Coronati try to ignore him, and the British Columbia and Yukon articles all seem to have been written by the same person. UGLE lodges are discouraged from linking to anything by Lomas, but this has never been formalised, and is usually a quiet word to the webmaster. It would probably be better to retitle the section and concentrate on the speculative nature of his historical work. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that the ref I gave advanced his academic status within the Masonic research (even though it appears to do that), but offered it as a demonstration of his influence on others writers which might be useful. I think there has to be good references to hand for the article to report negatively on his professional reputation; perhaps - as you suggest, consider a rewrite that demonstrates his approach is non-maintsream by reference to his works or reviews, but steers clear of any potentially libellous allegations that he doesn't have a good reputation within his field of research, unless there are verifiable reports of this being the case. Regards, -- Zac  Δ  talk! 23:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another link that might be useful for comments in the article because it reproduces a published review. The comment "The romantic nature of his writings are reminiscent of other famous masonic authors such as the late J. S. Ward and Arthur Edward Waite" is problematic - probably true but is it verifiable? -- Zac  Δ  talk! 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the ref may be from his site, but it summarises how Lomas' supporters see his writing. I've scrapped the first half of the section, retitled it, and given examples of the extremes of criticism. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say its a good ref for showing that angle.  It seems a lot better to me now, but I was twitching to make a few minor edits and rewrite the comment given to ref 7, because I can't see how you get that from the review. I'll go ahead and make those changes, but feel free to revert anything if you don't consider it beneficial. -- Zac  Δ  talk! 00:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say this could probably do with a bit of padding, but it's much more objective.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Liked your last edit, and agree with your last point.  I know nothing about this author, BTW, or any of his works, but it stricks me that this could be developed into a very interesting bio if someone felt inclined to do that.  Pity there are no images available in Wikimedia commons though. I wish book publishers had the sense to use Wikimedia commons to deposit images of books and authors, so editors here could get access to copyright free pictures for these sorts of pages.  Cheers, -- Zac  Δ  talk! 11:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the input and much needed perspective. I know Bob better as a lecturer - to be frank, The Hiram Key put me off - but he doesn't deserve the petty name-calling that debates on his stuff often descend to. He is an entertaining writer with an impish sense of humour that isn't immediately obvious in his published work, and unlike his more vocal critics, he doesn't take himself particularly seriously. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that is most difficult to reference. All the best.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance and references needed 

message: Given that Lomas’s work is routinely criticized as Pseudohistory, it seems appropriate to include him in Category:Pseudohistorians.  Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Works of pseudohistory often rely exclusively on sources that appear to support the thesis being promoted while ignoring sources that contradict it. Many works of pseudohistory treat myths, legends, and other unreliable sources as literal historical truth while ignoring or dismissing evidence to the contrary." Lomas's work that mentions Myths and legends actually state they are myths. He is a valid and recognised academic person. I believe just because some people who have not read his work  claim his work is pseudohistory is not sufficient to tag him as one, when it is libellous.  Several people have accused him of being a Lizard person, but it would be wrong to add a category of "lizard person" as it is to tag him as a Pseudohistorians. Penddraig (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Pseudohistorian 

message: Per WP:NOTCV articles usually don't keep long publications list.  It would be a good idea to select notable items only.  —PaleoNeonate – 06:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if the bibliography should be split to its own page similar to other authors. Penddraig (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CV 

message: "According to his website, Lomas is a regular supporter of the Orkney International Science Festival, having lectured there, chaired sessions, and taken part in the school's support sessions over a period of eight years."
It seems incredibly odd to me that such a thing could not be either verified or disqualified. Either there's records proving this to be the case or there isn't and if there isn't then that fact needs to be added ("Despite no record of his attendance Lomas' website claims he is a regular supporter [etc]". I'm unfamiliar with the man or his work so I'll see what I can do to fact check as I have no bias here (I simply thought it was a strange sentence that begged the question of whether or not it was true) AeonFluxus (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for school.... is there anything beyond his website anyone has access to?