Talk:Robert M. Schoch

message: Why not a ref directly to the Giza sphinx? (Ronz 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Sphinx of Giza 

message: This sentence seems very awkward to me:
Schoch's other theories include the belief that possibly all pyramids —in Egypt, Mesoamerica and elsewhere —represent (in the sense that the general concept of pyramids is inherited, along with many other cultural commonalities) a much older global culture, or at least that there was cultural contact around the world in ancient times.
I will edit and update it in the next day our two. Phersh (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward Sentence 

message: I'm working on improving this article. IMHO, the areas possibly to be covered include, in no special order:
*Early life and education
*Paleontology & evolution
*Sphinx
*Yonaguni
*Textbooks and teaching
*Pyramids, including Bosnia
*Natural catastrophes
*Parapsychology
*Stratigraphy
*Individual articles on his books, where appropriate
*Speaking and lecturing
Lou Sander (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section on environmentalism. It was too close to the original text, some bits directly copied, and it's basically promotional. You'll need independent sources  for all of that. Nothing on his personal life? Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One of his books is said to have some personal information. Boston University apparently doesn't say much about that stuff for their faculty members. I will keep working on it. Lou Sander (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: His books do have personal information. We generally treat that sort of thing (eg someone's statements on their website) as what they've said, not as fact. I'm not sure how much personal information we should put in. His two wives, his children (whose names in any case we probably shouldn't mention). Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking possibly date and place of birth, where he was raised, maybe something about his parents. His wives have collaborated with him a bit (but I'm not saying that that means we should mention them). Right now, he seems to have just materialized at George Washington University, and the first date is that of his PhD. Third party info about his land trust (or whatever) and elective office in Attleboro is probably available if somebody looks hard enough, but IMHO isn't worth the effort. OTOH, local reporting on political races often states the ages of the candidates, so might be an independent source on how long he has been around. Lou Sander (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there is the fact that he's only notable for his fringe publications - without those we almost certainly wouldn't have an article on him. Land trust? Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjects to be covered 

message: I deleted two books from Published works. Environmental Ethics got an ISBN and was never published. Development of Environmental Thought was a series of class notes to be handed out to students. It got an ISBN only so they could sell it in the college bookstore. Lou Sander (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Well spotted. Doug Weller (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books removed 

message: See this. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Weller: how's that opposition to the YDIH been working for you lately? Twang (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently paid a predatory publisher to publish an article with Robert Bauval  

message: The contents of the section seem to clearly established to be WP:FRINGE:  Describing them as "Alternative" or "Non-mainstream" would appear to WP:PROFRINGE. I could be wrong, of course - feel free to ask for clarification on the fringe theories noticeboard.--tronvillain (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, it's fringe. :)  --the eloquent peasant (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

text: No, that's not how NPOV works. Go read WP:FRINGE. We identify fringe views as fringe. --tronvillain (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe 

message: 1) Remove "fringe" in the summary and header 2) Replace "Response from academics with Response from critics" 3) This text Schoch is best known for his fringe argument that the Great Sphinx of Giza is much older than conventionally thought and that some kind of catastrophe was responsible for wiping out evidence of a significantly older civilization. In 1991, Schoch redated the monument to 10,000–5,000 BC, based on his argument that its erosion was due mainly to the effects of water, rather than wind and sand, and also based on findings from seismic studies around the base of the Sphinx and elsewhere on the plateau.[6][7][8] These conclusions do not have consensus in the scientific community.
should instead say something like this:
Schoch is best known for his proposal that the Great Sphinx of Giza is older than conventionally thought and that a solar event-triggered climate catastrophe was responsible for wiping out evidence of a significantly older civilization. In 1991, Schoch initially re-dated the original lion monument to 7,000–5,000 BC, based on his observation that vertical erosion channels only seen on the enclosure walls of the Sphinx and not elsewhere on the Giza Plateau were due the effects of rain and run-off, rather than wind and sand which cause horizontal erosion channels also seen elsewhere on the Giza Plateau, corroborated by seismic refraction measurements he obtained with Thomas Doebcki around the base of the Sphinx and elsewhere on the plateau.[6][7][8]. The original estimate was based on linear modeling of the seismic data and Schoch later revised his estimate to circa 10,000 BC using a more realistic non-linear subsurface decay model of the data. Schoch's model predicted that megalithic building by prehistoric people need not leave an archeological footprint and this was later confirmed when Goebekli Tepe was discovered by Klaus Schmidt and the German Archeological Institute. Schoch also proposed that that the head and rump section of the Sphinx were the only parts actually (re)carved during the Old Kingdom, presumably, but not necessarily by Khafre. This explained the disproportionately small head of the Sphinx relative to the size of its body.
Schoch's re-dating of the original construction of the Sphinx is not accepted by the Egyptological community which believes Khafre made the Sphinx though some Egyptologists have also questioned if it might not have been Khufu or Djedefre, and not Khafre.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.237.169 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fine as it is, so no.Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

text: au contraire mon ami. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not to WP:PROMOTE.  —PaleoNeonate – 22:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Schoch's views on archaeology are fringe/pseudoscience. This is supported by multiple sources cited in the article. – Joe (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Corrections Proposed 

message: But his criticism is referenced under Response from Adademics. 
This isn't very BLP-like. I propose to remove it, even though BLP would allow me to do it without notice. 
Lou Sander (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a reason to change the section heading at most, not remove a reliable source. – Joe (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Colavito is not an academic