Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:47, 12 April 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Please add new entries at the bottom of the list. Thank you!

Race and intelligence, new draft

A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. Since this is a highly contested article that has had numerous debates about neutrality and fringe theories, I am announcing this on the relevant noticeboards to get wider feedback on the draft. Interested editors may review and comment on the draft and suggest revisions at the mediation page, so long as they abide by the mediation rules listed here.

Please discuss changes at the mediation page rather than trying to correct issues in the article directly, at least for the time being. The topic is sensitive, and the best hope of achieving a stable article is to begin from this draft and talk through any revisions needed to create better balance and more complete coverage. --Ludwigs2 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a point of information the article has been changed in mainspace and editing is not quite happening as Ludwigs2 envisaged. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag

The Kharsag Epics AfD ended in merge with Christian O'Brien, now we have an article on the word Kharsag, which is found only in a translation of some Sumerian epics by a scholar named Barton in 1918. This again is an attempt to put forward O'Brien's fringe views. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected it to O'Brien-- no sense in arguing it out again. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And that was immediately reverted. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN. If he reverts again, refer to WP:AN3. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in case you were wondering, "kharsag" is normally transliterated as hursanu or hursag which means "foothill" in Sumerian. It is not a place. See Ninhursag or here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only Barton has ever used the 'word' on its own.

My apologies, as I understood it, Misplaced Pages only requires one verifiable source so I only listed Barton. It seems I must be wrong, so I have cited plenty of other notable non-fringe scholars such as Charles Boutiflower, William F. Warren, Morris Jastrow, Arthur Bernard Cook, G. A. Wainwright, Robert William Rogers, Professor A.H. Sayce to support the existence of the word, which I do not feel suitably merged on a fringe scientist's page. Any assistance splitting the article back would be most appreciated. I didn't want to start an edit-war or anything, so thought I'd post here in the hope that common sense prevails. The dictionary cited lists sag as "head" here, which should highlight the Kramer confusion. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my latest revisions of this within the Christian O'Brien page. I would be grateful for help, opinions and assistance to gain agreement for Kharsag's own page. Paul Bedson (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Luther Miles Schulze

I don't have time to do anything more than flag this article right now -- it is very credulous, conceivably bogus, and if nothing else contains quotations too extensive to be fair use. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact the author has written more articles with similar issues, including Clara Germana Cele and Robbie Mannheim. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all of those articles need a closer look. They seem to be almost all sourced to something called Strange Magazine. Which, although I haven't looked closely into it, sounds like it fails WP:RS just from its title. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've put Schulze up for deletion. I think the article on Anneliese Michel is OK. I'm still looking at the others. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Neil-Smith is also at AFD. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The above user has unfortunately put Christopher Neil-Smith for deletion. By searching Google Books, one can see that this individual is covered across several pieces of literature. The individual is a notable figure in the Church of England because he is an appointed exorcist in that Church. He is similar to Candido Amantini or Jeremy Davies (exorcist) in the Roman Catholic Church. If this article is deleted, there will be no other article on an exorcist within the Anglican Communion. On the other hand, the Catholic Church's exorcists are well represented with 30 articles in '']''. With regards, Anupam 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You have stated here that "mainstream references which it is clear, in context, deny the notability of this person as an expert." Why do you ignore Barnes & Noble published literature that states that "The Reverend Christopher Neil-Smith is a leading British exorcist and writer on exorcism."? The Roman Catholic Church has thirty exorcists represented in the "Category:Catholic exorcists". If you somehow misrepresent the notability of this individual and succeed in deleting the article, you will have deleted the only article on an exorcist in the Anglican Communion. Please reconsider your decision. With regards, Anupam 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote in reply on my talk page, the cited book is a collection of Forteana, not a serious reference. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Exorcists in general

Following Anupam's suggestion, I've taken a look at Category:Exorcists and its subcategories. It seems to me that a lot of these are either not really notable or are WP:ONEEVENT guys. the sourcing seems a bit thin too. Mangoe (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The entire cat needs attention. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Anagrammatic dispersion

Anagrammatic dispersion is an article about a cryptographic technique which exists, but it describes at length how it was used in the Bible to add extra messages. It is not my area of expertise, but I have the impression that it is presenting things which are generally considered to be fringe theories as if they are undeniable truth, with many examples that seem at first glance rather farfetched. A critical review of the article by editors more familiar with such "cryptography in the Bible" theories would probably be beneficial. Fram (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have any legitimate connection to cryptography. It's apparently a dubious and perhaps obscure to the point of lacking notability deconstructive lit-crit notion used by maybe three people in the world and seized upon in a bordering-on-self-published "truth about scripture!" tract. The hard part here is whether there would be anything left if the fringiness were all cut out. I think it is possible that it is a term used in passing out of a textual crit theory which is better known but which goes by a different name. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've deleted the fringe stuff from a non-notable and apparently self-published writer named Hadfield (note the article's creator is named Kanucape, the book is published (the only one published so far in fact) by Capabel Press whose name is also on the author's website as the owner. A lot was clear copyvio - the fact that the article asserted permission is irrelevant. We've got a new user, quite likely associated with the book. But now that I've got most of it out (and maybe Saussure should have been in there, see , but not the way he was used), I'm left with a stub that says it's a tool of cryptography. I'm not sure what to do now, AfD? Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reactions. Looking a bit further, it seems to have some notability as something used by (or discussed by, that's not yet clear) Jean Baudrillard, who is quite important. I would redirect it to his article, but for the fact that it doesn't mention the term... It's one of those bizarre terms that get nearly as much Google Books hits as actual Google hits, and I'm not quite sure what to do with it any further. Fram (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

After further looking I've decided to send it to AFD. It appears to be an artifact of one person talking about Baudrillard; I've not found any evidence that the latter used the term or that this one reference has caught on at all. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Loudun possessions

This is apparently a real episode, but is written rather credulously. I mean, is that really Asmodeus's signature? Mangoe (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The ethnicity of John Hunyadi

There is a disagreement about the origins of John Hunyadi (Hungarian Janos Hunyadi, Romanian Ioan de Hunedoara).

The text from the current version of the article is this:

I think the correct text would be:

Motivation:

1. Vlach/Romanian origin ("Vlach" was in the Middle Ages the exonym for "Romanian")

Medieval chroniclers state clearly that his father (Voik) and his mother (Elisabetha) were Vlachs/Romanians. Also there are "numerous documents in which Hunyadi's by-name appears as János Oláh. (Oláh is the Hungarian word for Wlach.)"

In addition there are tens of modern sources accepting the Vlach/Romanian descent (I listed only neutral and Hungarian sources, in order not to be said that the Romanian works are biased). Even Britannica and Britannica 1911 state that he was Vlach/Romanian and he came from Wallachia (Romanian medieval principality) and his family migrated to Hungary (so he was an alien, not an ethnic Hungarian)

2. Hungarian/Magyar origin (Magyar is another term for Hungarian)

It doesn't seem ok to me to take in consideration a theory (Magyar descendance) supported by a single source , which in addition is a book about literature (and not about history ) and where it is only presumed that he was a Magyar. In this work it is discussed mainly his representation in epic poems, not the historical reality. Below i offered the exact quote from the book

3. Cuman origin

Also his Cuman origin is supported by a single Hungarian source (possibly biased on this subject, like Romanian sources too, so we must be at least circumspect about its reliability) , where is not written even a word about the alleged Romanian origin which was asserted even in medieval texts (Umumu (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

4. Slav origin

The Slav descent has 3 references in the wiki article, and in all of them the Romanian origin is presented as being the most probable, while the theory of Slav origin is presented as being only an alternative theory:
- Source 1 (Hungarian source):

- Source 2: (Neutral source)

- Source 3: (Hungarian source)

See talk page of the article, all theories have their reliable sources. The article also does mention that the majority of sources supports the Vlach descendance, the alternative sources are not overemphasized at all.
According to the Cambridge University Press source: From historical sources nothing certain seems to be known of Janko`s origin; but he was presumably a Magyar. I think that's pretty much OK as a reference. A couple of English books also state that his mother was Hungarian, which makes John Hunyadi at least half-Hungarian.
Plus, in the above points I don't see that some sources only refer to the obscurity surrounding the family's origins, although this is probably more notable than any of the alternative theories. Squash Racket (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"some sources only refer to the obscurity surrounding the family's origins" - False statement

From the definition of Fringe theories: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study"

Aren't 33 valid sources enough for considering the theory of the Vlach/Romanian origin a mainstream view?

For me it seems enough relevant only the fact that the medieval chronicles call him "John the Vlach" (Hungarian János Oláh).

Similar cases:

- Oláh Miklós (Nicolaus Olahus), whose grandmather, Maria, was John Hunyadi's sister was according to wiki articke of Vlach (Hungarian: Oláh) descent

- Mózes Székely and György Székely were Szekelys

The authors of the book which suggests a possible Magyar/Hungarian origin (point no 2) are H. Munro Chadwick and Nora Kershaw Chadwick

Hector Munro Chadwick (22 October 1870 –2 January 1947) was an English scholar. He is known as a philologist and historian of literature. With his wife, Nora Kershaw Chadwick, he compiled a multi-volume survey of oral traditions and oral poetry, published 1932-1940. In this he further developed the theory of a Heroic Age which he had previously stated in a publication of 1912.

I don't think the speculation ("He was presumably a Magyar") of a philologist is so valuable when talking about medieval history, especially when it is not supported (at least in the wiki article) by other sources. (Umumu (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Your original research about medieval chronicles is just that - original research (especially the strange part regarding names and nationalities, you very well know how misleading is that).

When a theory is supported by a Cambridge University Press source and is not overrepresented, then there's no problems with it. I repeat: some other sources consider at least his mother Hungarian anyway. Did anybody question the mainstream view here?

Plus, in the above points I don't see that some sources only refer to the obscurity surrounding the family's origins, although this is probably more notable than any of the alternative theories. Squash Racket (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a source where the editor draw a conclusion based on an Epic song. I don`t see what is there more to say? It is unreasonable to take into consideration conclusions based on an epic study, whatever that study is on Cambridge or not, it is still a study of an epic poetry and not historical facts. Just to remind everybody, this claim is based on a single obscure source that is a study of epic poetry(epic song) and this is not a Fringe theory ? Nothing else to say.iadrian (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating my comment from the talk page of the article:

When the author draws his conclusion, he clearly doesn't talk about the epic song, but adds his own verdict. I won't repeat this once more even if you still don't understand it. Squash Racket (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating my comment from the talk page of the article:

Yes, he clearly draws his conclusion from an Epic song(poetry) not historical data. I don`t see how can you even argue about this when the book is called The growth of literature and the "fact" is found in the second part of the book Yugoslav oral poetry in the section called Heroic Poetry. It looks like you are the one who doesn`t understand, or you just don`t want to. Please wait until the thread on the Fridge theory reach to a conclusion to remove the dubious form. Please read the WP:DISPUTED.iadrian (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

. iadrian (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So you are incapable of understanding one simple sentence: From historical sources nothing certain seems to be known of Janko`s origin; but he was presumably a Magyar. I don't see where the author refers to any epic songs or poetry in his verdict. Squash Racket (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The text Others simply refer to the obscurity surrounding the ethnic origins does not exist in the text presented as reference. The exact quote is "Legend made him an illegitimate son of King Sigismund of Hungary (1387-1437), western emperor, but this is doubtful". It is already written in the wiki article about the possible royal descendance. (Umumu (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Written under a section called "legendary origins", although reliable secondary sources like the one above present this theory and/or refer to the obscurity. (Or how else would you interpret "this is doubtful"?) Many other sources also mention this theory. ::::For some reason, we decided to base the structure on the Catholic Encyclopedia (a tertiary source) disregarding what many secondary sources say about the origins of Hunyadi. Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As Hugh Seton-Watson put it: "The ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucarest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians." Squash Racket (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

*Bucharest . Historical fact is that they considered them self Hungarians but that doesn`t change the fact about their Romanian origin and by the way. i don`t see why did you say that at all when we already ruled out Romanian/Hungarian sources.iadrian (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Hugh Seton-Watson begged to differ regarding the "fact" about his ethnicity.

He's a British historian, I've linked his name twice already. Squash Racket (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well a dozen other begged to support the fact, in fact the mainstream theory is that John Hynadi was of Romanian origin. iadrian (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody really knows who his mother was in the first place. She was either Hungarian or Vlach or neither.

The theories regarding his father are presented together with the mainstream view. With references of course. Squash Racket (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First you must understand that Vlach was in the Middle Ages the exonym for Romanian and one single source, that "presumes" based on epic songs doesn`t have a historical relevance. As i said on the talk page, please find another source, i am sure that there is no trouble to present with another reliable source about his Magyar origin? And we can leave the Epic songs out from historical facts. Of course , Romanian/Hungarian sources are not to be trusted as you cited in the Fringe theory thread the Hugh Seton-Watson.iadrian (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This mess is incomprehensible, try it once more. Squash Racket (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, i will repeat it. First you must understand that the word "Vlach" was in the Middle Ages the exonym for the word "Romanian" and one single source, that "presumes", based on epic study doesn`t have a historical relevance. As i said on the talk page, please find another source, i am sure that there is no trouble to present with another reliable source about his Magyar origin?? And we can leave the Epic songs out from history. Of course , Romanian/Hungarian sources are not to be trusted as you cited the Hugh Seton-Watson "The ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucharest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians.".iadrian (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You STILL don't understand this, but the cited sentence is not based on any epic songs. You just keep repeating this.

"The ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucharest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians.". Hugh Seton-Watson said "we will decide this debate for you"? So we must delete ALL Hungarian and Romanian references from the article? Squash Racket (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please try to respect the WP:FAITH and try to verify the source you are defending. Read the whole page (316-317).iadrian (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Squash Racket, you must accept that a book about literature where a philologist issues an assumption is not the most scientific and trustable source when we talk about historical facts. Why don't we also take in consideration travel guides or the opinions of historical films directors?
On the other hand the Cuman origin is supported by a single Hungarian source. It is needed at least one more (preferably neutral) reference(Umumu (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

H. Munro Chadwick is a British historian and philologist, probably the IDEAL source here. Squash Racket (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On his wiki page it was written that he was historian of literature...(Umumu (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages is a reliable source since when? Squash Racket (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based on reliable sources so, by transitivity, it itself should be a reliable one, but If Britannica tells he was "a historian", probably that is the truth. I have read on wiki article that he was "a historian of literature" and that is why I had mentioned wikipedia, but the notability criterion isn't still fulfilled. Also the source for the Cuman origin is still questionable (Umumu (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

The source about the epic study is a unreliable source if it stands as a single source supporting the Magyar origin ,and it also qualifies as a Fringe theory. To remove any doubt, as i said before, if that is really one of the alternative theories there should`t be any trouble to find atleast one more source that states the same fact.iadrian (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the Cambridge University Press reference written by a British historian with his own Misplaced Pages article?
There are other sources suggesting at least his mother's Hungarian origin, so even without this source his Hungarian ethnic origins couldn't possibly be considered a fringe theory. Squash Racket (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Britannca talks clearly about his Wallachian origin, while Britannica 1911 tells "JANOS HUNYADI (c. 1387-1456), Hungarian statesman and warrior, was the son of Vojk, a Magyarized Vlach who married Elizabeth Morzsinay.". I think we should write that Vojk/Vajk was undoubtedly Vlach/Romanian.

Aside from this, the single source for the Cuman remains questionable

From the definition: A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced EXTENSIVELY , and in a serious manner, in at least one MAJOR publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
(Umumu (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

I think a Cambridge University Press book by a British historian is a major publication, right?

Vajk was either Vlach, South Slavic (three references), Hungarian, and a number of sources refer to the obscurity surrounding the Hunyadis' origins. As you very well know. Besides, Romanian editors themselves do cite Hungarian sources but only when Hungarian sources fit their views. Why is that? Squash Racket (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it

The John Hunyadi article stinks all over; it's not just the ethnicity that's a problem, but pretty much every single sentence in the first section. I've removed one almost certainly untrue claim, but I'm skeptical that this fellow is anything like as important as he is being made out to be in the first section. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is to maintain a NPOV because John Hynadi was a important person for both Hungarians and Romanians. A big part of the article is "stinky" because of various nationalistic inspired edits by both sides.iadrian (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Le Matin des magiciens

Is anyone familiar with this fringe book? The article is one-sided at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ack, no sources at all? This is not good. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be an obscure book published in the 60s that's sometimes mentioned by sociologists and writers as a kind of shorthand to signify "the origin of wacky concepts". Should be a lot more coverage from reliable sources, all I see online are occasional personal reviews such as here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually driven to use that, in desperation, although I'm still looking madly. Please do let me know if you locate anything more reputable, thanks. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's certainly an improvement. I couldn't understand why the French title but I was too tired (bad night) to actually think it through. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not much, but maybe and might help. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Louie, you're a doll. I'll see what I can do with those, thanks. Please do feel free to pitch in and Be Bold. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) My local library system does not have The cult of alien gods: H.P. Lovecraft and extraterrestrial pop culture By Jason Colavito - can you two check yours? That looks to have some excellent content on this book. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I had come across references to the book when working on the The Nine Unknown article. At the time, I wasn't able to locate the text itself (at least online), but did find that it was discussed in Turn Off Your Mind: The Mystic Sixties and the Dark Side of the Age of Aquarius by Gary Lachman. Apparent;y it was a very influential book in the 60s. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking for that one as well - you happen to have either of these, or access to them? :-) Hopeful puppy 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly readable on Google Books. Haven't checked my library yet. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that the 1st chapter is devoted to The morning of the magicians and is readable on Google books. Abecedare (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Darnit, that didn't work for me before. Its Teh Interwebz, it has it in for me. Thanks, Abe - I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Or you can dig in now - that would be lovely. :-) KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a fabulous reference. But alas, it's the weekend, and I must quit this place til Monday. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ica stones -

I'd appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on this for a couple of days, we have an editor who despite the content of the article keeps adding to the lead that there is no confirmation that it is a hoax (you'd think men riding dinosaurs would be enough, but the articles makes it clear it's a hoax). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And he's put it back, with an edit summary saying there is no evidence they are faked and it would be impossible to fake them all. I've done 2 reverts, so I have to leave it now. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, also left a 3rr warning on the users page, plus a request to take it to the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has modified the lead, I've tweaked it a bit but I'm still not sure. Out for a while now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

More Bernard Leeman

I found this edit about a 'Queen of Sheba' University, . So what is this 'University'? All I can find is that it was "Incorporated by Bernard Leeman, Rutis C Clytus, Sergey Kotelnikov, Queen of Sheba University Incorporated is located at 15 Ferguson Rd WESTBROOK, QLD," in 2008 in Florida. I doubt anything about it belongs on Misplaced Pages. The editor who added this is also complaining at the talk page, Talk:Kamal Salibi‎ about the removal of stuff about Leeman. Dougweller (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a BLP violation, as a poorly sourced possibly defamatory statement about a living person. I removed it. Hipocrite (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has hitherto proposed that the Quenn of Sheba University itself should be treated as notable, but if Salibi has accepted a position as its Chief Academic Adviser, it's correct to record that fact in the article about him. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

1. IN AND AROUND THE BOOK OF DANIEL, CHARLES BOUTFLOWER, M.A., LATE VICAR OF TERLING, ESSEX
2. Babylonian and Pre-Babylinian Cosmology by William F. Warren, Boston University
3. The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria by Morris Jastrow
4. Cook, Arthur Bernard. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914
5. The Bull Standards of Egypt G. A. Wainwright, Robert William Rogers
6. A History of Babylonia and Assyria, Volume I by Robert William Rogers
7. Two Hitite Cuneiform Tablets from Boghaz Eui by The Reverend. Professor A. H. Sayce

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution