Talk:America Unearthed

Blog criticism

‎71.195.22.181 wants to add Jason Colavito's blog as a source for criticism of the show. I don't see how this blog is a reliable source. It's self-published without editorial oversight, and I don't think Colavito's work on Lovecraft and ancient astronauts makes him an expert on these kinds of alternate history, much less on Wolter's personal background. If there is significant criticism of the show, surely we can find better sources than a random blog on the internet?

Furthermore, while re-adding the blog, 71.195.22.181 has duplicated parts of the article: Major parts of the "reception" section's first and second paragraph are identical. Since that's certainly not beneficial, I'll remove the outright duplication, but I still hold we should remove the blog as well. Huon (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I can see to include it is that Wolter himself comments. He relates first hands accounts about his past & career, his credentials, and interests. Via Colavito, we get a usable primary source assuming we can verify that Wolter actually made the comments.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Colavito is a published author in the arena of "junk archeology" and so qualifies as a WP:SPS in commenting on "junk archaeology" TV shows. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Examiner article

An article from examiner . com (blacklisted) was published March 26, 2013 describing the journalist Richard Thornton's story of systemic editing bias on the Bartow County, Georgia, Gordon County, Georgia and Murray County, Georgia pages by User:DougWeller though with my untrained eye viewing the edit histories I do not see evidence of this. Would something like that best be brought through a dispute resolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.50.70 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it's User:Dougweller; the other account is dormant. Secondly, what would the dispute be about? Some off-site comments you couldn't verify? And who would be the parties of the dispute? Thirdly, why bring up a dispute about several Georgia counties here? I believe that Examiner article is discussed here; my advice would be to ignore it. There are reasons Examiner.com is blacklisted, its utter lack of reliability and the fact that their editors are paid per page view among them. Huon (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It is, shall we say, inaccurate. Among other things I never emailed Thornton so far as I can recall (although he's emailed me), and I would never tell any editor that they needed my approval or I'd block them. That would be a good way to lose my sysop privileges. I did warn him on his talk page (which is under a different name), but that was routine for adding unverified material. I certainly don't understand the claim about the county articles. He seems pretty confused. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Forensic geologist

Should we be perpetuating this label? He only has a bachelor's degree in geology and his professional expertise is in the scientific testing of concrete. This seems to be a self-conferred label perpetuated by his fans and the media. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, according to his company's "services" page, forensic geology is one of the services they offer. It's probable that someone can work as a forensic geologist without having a degree specific to forensic geology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

True. But we don't call an author a historian just because they write books about history. And what is Forensic geology? Our article says "Forensic Geology is the study of evidence relating to minerals, oil, petroleum, and other materials found in the Earth, used to answer questions raised by the legal system." That seems to be correct, eg see [1] where a forensic geology and environmental consulting firm says the same thing. Wolter seems to be redefining this in his personal work. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, just on the face of it, Wolter seems like an unreliable and biased self-proclaimed "expert" reporting highly dubious, cherry-picked "evidence" in support of his pre-conceived notions. 98.67.109.246 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wolter's use of the phrase is clearly non-standard and an unduly self promotional effort to establish some kind of "bona fides" for a field that does not exist. "Geologist" is appropriate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

i should have known that Wikipedia was not a reliable source and looked beyond. my inaccurate claims have been struck per notice from Agyle below -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

True, but he's got reliably sourced media repeating his claims, so I think "self proclaimed forensic geologist" is the way to go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, I would take “self–proclaimed” as intended to cast doubt about the fact, which unless supported by a reliable source would go against the neutral point-of-view we should be following. TheRedPenOfDoom, forensic geology is a well established field; google the term. While the word “forensic” may conjure up exciting images of CSI stars solving murders, it's just another specialty of the profession, like field geologist, environmental geologist, petroleum geologist, or engineering geologist, and the work does not exclusively, or even predominantly, involve crimes. Dougweller, can you cite an example of Wolter redefining the term “forensic geologist“ contrary to accepted practice? It sounds like he spent two decades as a practicing geologist at his firm, which does forensic geology work, specializing in concrete analysis. This isn't a regulated title like “CPA”, it's a job description, and given its mainstream acceptance, if people are going to challenge and suppress it, you need to cite something other than personal doubts. ––Agyle (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So you'd be happy with "forensic geologist specializing in concrete analysis"? Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

My emotional response to your wording isn't relevant, but that isn't something I'd write in this article as it stands. ––Agyle (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

his response wasn't addressed to your personal emotional state, ASS, his response was one of incredulity that you would broaden the definition of "Forensic Geologist" to include what Wolter does with this show, which is NOT forensic geology. It's like if you included astrology as being part of the definition of astronomy. His challenging your common sense, not if you get happy happy from making mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.124.180 (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Wolter's Publication History.

Describing Scott Wolter as a 'geologist' seems a stretch. I can't seem to find any example of his publishing in a reasonable peer-reviewed journal. I don't think that the Barnes review, a journal given over mostly to Holocaust denial counts. 202.159.139.178 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't care what he has or hasn't published; when reliable third-party sources call him a geologist that's good enough for us. Besides, I'd say all you need to be a geologist is the education, not the publication list. Huon (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, many geologists work outside of academia, and not publish academic articles. From what I understand, Wolter graduated with a geology degree in 1982, and has been working as a geologist since around that time. There are many reliable sources that refer to him as a geologist or forensic geologist, but if you don't trust those, you can verify his current Minnesota Professional Geologist license at [2] (either search by name, or his license number #30024). As of right now, it shows his license was granted in 1998, and is due to expire in 2014. ––Agyle (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

I tried to move the info for episode 16 up into the rest of the List of Episodes but being rather unskilled in such things I was unsuccessful. I managed to get it into the list but somehow the whole list was shifted down out of its section and stuck underneath the External Links of the box containing links to Programs aired by History. Perhaps someone who knows what they are doing could take a crack at it.--184.63.5.153 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Huon (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Episode section is now formatted to match any other "List of" television episodes. It also needs updating since this series still airs. Also, to anyone thinking of splitting the episode list off onto its own article, this main page is small enough to support it here, as long as the episode summaries remain the current size. Thanks. — Wyliepedia 07:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent reverts

We seem to currently disagree about the best version of the article. My main objections to Wikiy2k's preferred version are as follows:

1. The given source explicitly quotes the owner of the production company describing Wolters as "an Indiana Jones adventurer". There is no source for someone describing him as an "Indiana Jones wannabe", and Wikiy2k admits as much. Thus we should go with the sourced description.
2. The given source mentions Wolters is a forensic geologist, but it doesn't discuss his scientific background or his "use of geology to support his theories". Neither should we.
3. We should not in Wikipedia's voice claim that Wolters reveals "an alternative to the prevailing history of the United States". That's basically accepting Wolters' theories as a valid alternative when in reality they're so far off the fringe that I doubt we'll find any other scholar even discussing them. Also, it's stretching the given source quite a bit.
4. He "has been in hot pursuit unearthing Wolter's advanced degree" is anything but neutral, encyclopedic language. Also, citing a self-published blog for such content does not strike me as a good idea, especially when the author's published works deal with pop culture and horror fiction, not geology, archaeology or history.

Thus I'll revert. Huon (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Wolters was referenced as a "Indiana Jones wannabe." and could not find a reliable source to this kind of description whether it be a self-description or a slur. Again we need a citation to the "Indiana Jones adventurer". Is this a self-description or how has bestowed this title on him. H2 channel? Colavito?
2. Merely presenting an alternate view does mean theories are accepted or rejected. If Wikipedia is not to engage alternate opinions then it should not have a article on America Unearthed since that is precisely what that show is about. If an article exists, it should not be an opportunity to besiege the host or the show. Disagreeing with Scott Wolter's work does make it pseudo-science. Some creationist may believe geology is a pseudo-science because it states Earth is older than 6,000 years old, however we should ensure that there is no false impression made as to geology being a pseudo-science or the implication that currently remains in the article that Wolter's is not a legitimate geologist. Whether scholars are discussing the issues on America Unearthed is really not the point of wikipedia. I guess you might say scholars are not discussing divination or teleportation either and yet there are still an article in Wikipedia about them. Wikipedia is not a scholar forum, it is a world forum. Just because scholars are not "talking" about it, does not mean these articles can be belittled or the voices that do can be squelched. This is an article after all and it should give the reader a factual synopsis of what this show is about without all the added prejudice. It is not a blog to state anything you like to fit your world view. Just google Scandal at Wikipedia and Wolter if you are at any doubt who might have a more balanced view on this particular article and it certainly not the likes of those who have reverted these changes.
3. the blog link was already there, I did not think it was a good idea for it to remain but added more information about Colavito since he has less credentials than Wolter when it comes to geology and since credibility is the name of the game here, Colavito is seriously lacking especially since he published in his book that he verified Wolter was a degreed Geologist working in the capacity of the geologist and licensed by the state to practice geology which is more than what we can say about Colavito. So since we agree on that point, it seems the link to the blog can be removed. It then seems that any reference to Colavito on this page should be removed. Rather than revert, make sure you remove the parts that are problems. If Colavito is to stay, we should make sure that Colavito is highly biased against the show and those who are highly biased or fanatical against a certain topic should really not be included on wikipedia. This is not a fanatic forum either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiy2k (talk • contribs)

1) The "Indiana Jones adventurer" reference is already there. [3]

2) Per WP:FRINGE:

• Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.
• Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.
• Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing.

3) Colavito is a published and established debunker of fringe theories. "Colavito began debunking fringe science and revisionist history in the web-based magazine Lost Civilizations Uncovered in 2001. Since then, his work has appeared in Skeptic magazine, Humanist Network News, Swift, The Canadian, and TVTome and other outlets. Colavito has also worked as a consultant for major museums." [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that Wikiy2k made 4 separate reverts and have warned him, including pointing out that reverting again after 24 hours will be considered editwarring. Neil's comments above are correct and it's clear that Wikiy2k doesn't understand our policies and guidelines as he/she seems to believe that only sources that are favorable to a subject should be included. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I should add that "He has a scientific background and uses geology to support his theories" is misleading, as a lot of his arguments, possibly most, do not rely on geology. He indeed has a Bachelor's degree in geology (which isn't really the same as having a scientific background) and his professional expertise as a geologist seems to have been in scientific testing of concrete. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I just removed Calavito reference, unfortunately before reading this, but I do stand by the edit. While he is a published author, WP:SPS says: “exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.” Calavito has been writing regularly on this topic for over a year, and apparently no reliable sources have mentioned his work; if/when they do, then that reliable source can be cited. While TRPoD says “Colavito is a published author in the arena of ‘junk archeology’ and so qualifies as a WP:SPS in commenting on ‘junk archaeology’ TV shows”, two of his three books focus exclusively on horror literature, and the third is on horror literature's (specifically Lovecraft's) influence on fringe theories of alien civilizations. While the fields of “junk archeology” and television show commentary would be a part of that, that doesn't establish “expertise” in the field of ”junk archeology”. His oeuvre of independently-published junk archeology research seems quite limited, often tangential to the field, and published only in non-academic magazines (e.g. Skeptic). ––Agyle (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The topic is Wolter's various fringe theories propagated via his TV show. Inclusion of the Colavito's criticism of the show and of Wolter falls under WP:PARITY. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:PARITY allows fringe theories and weak reliable sources to be balanced with other weak reliable sources. It says “Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.” The idea is that fringe theories don't merit even a mention in serious scholarly journals. If The National Enquirer or People Magazine mentioned Calavito's writings about America Unearthed, those normally scientifically-ridiculous sources might be reasonable. However in this situation, the source being cited is not even a weak reliable source, it's self published, and no reliable source makes any mention about Calavito's writings about America Unearthed. WP:PARITY does not justify citing a self-published source to support a statement about that self-published source. ––Agyle (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Kenneth Feder good enough for you?[5] - yes, it isn't about America Unearthed, but I don't see that as relevant. That mention shows that an established published archaeologist thinks Colavito is a good source. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You have it absolutely backwards Agyle - Calavito's is NOT the fringe theory , he represents the mainstream academic view. Calavito has been published in the arena of exposing "junk archeology" and is a qualified critiquer of the fringe junk archeology presented in the show. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, if by “good enough for you,” you mean do I think that source justifies Colavito's self-published writings being treated as reliable sources in this article, then no I don't. TRPoD, perhaps I wasn't clear, but I essentially agree with what you said, except that I don't equate “qualified critiquer” to “established expert on the subject matter”, or the justification of citing Colavito under WP:SPS. In particular, even if justifying Colavito's criticism of the program under WP:SPS, questioning Wolter's credentials runs against WP:SPS's suggestion to “never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.” The statement about Wolter's credentials has been added and reverted repeatedly nearly since this article's creation a year ago, and in following Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution I won't re–revert it, but unless there's general agreement to remove it, it seems we're at an impasse that may benefit from one of the dispute resolution noticeboards (WP:SEEKHELP). ––Agyle (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom's recent edit. Criticism focused on the show itself is appropriate. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with TRPD's recent edit. Agyle is right about not using Colavito to question Wolter's credentials. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Information on Scott Wolters

A section was added on Wolters with no sources. It contained what I'd characterize as contentious material, e.g. “His lab has provided services to many archaeological investigations, especially those involving fringe theories”, and “...many books on fringe archaeological topics..." (I think there are three, though I haven't read anything about his most recent; his other books are on concrete failure and lake superior agates.) The rest of it, while less contentious, should still be accurate and verifiable (I'm doubtful about some of it), and should try to present a balanced, neutral point of view. I removed the entire section, per WP:BLP's guidance: “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” ––Agyle (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a possible starting point, with two citations, from the introductory paragraph on a deleted page about Wolters (subject considered non-notable).

Scott Wolter is an American television personality, forensic geologist and author who hosts the H2 network's television series America Unearthed. He graduated from the University of Minnesota Duluth in 1982. Wolter is also president of St. Paul-based American Petrographic Services.

I don't think any reliable source established that he's American (his mother is Canadian), though there are reliable sources that he went to college in Minnesota and has worked in Minnesota at least since 1990; personally I wouldn't make the claim without a citation.

––Agyle (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And I also think we should note his speciality as a forensic geologist as readers may misunderstand this without some clarification. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

i am not really seeing how that is relevant to the subject of the article, the TV series. For example Jeopardy! does not go into the education or background of its hosts or "clue crew" members. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A distinction from, say, game show hosts, is that Wolter routinely gives his personal opinions on controversial historical and scientific subjects. However, Wikipedia articles on other personality-driven shows (Bill Nye the Science Guy, The O'Reilly Factor, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Geraldo) include only brief (part of a sentence) backgrounds on their hosts, only mentioning the host's “TV persona” or other program-related information. Granted, there are Wikipedia biographies on the hosts of those shows, but a recent Articles for Deletion nomination determined Wolter was not a notable subject warranting a biography, and covering Wolter's personal life here seems beyond the scope of the subject (America Unearthed). The "Host" section was rewritten yesterday, with additional details like his high school, and wife's and children's names; I again removed it due to accuracy, neutrality, balance, and citation issues, but I think relevancy should be considered as well. Agyle (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding some clarification on "accuracy" issues for biographies, since it was again an issue. When a claim is made like Wolter being the founder of APS, the [cited source] suggests this, but does not state it explicitly; it discusses founders in one paragraph, and Wolter and two other people in the next paragraph. Given how consistently the claim is not made when his relationship with APS is covered, even if a source does claim that, I'd weigh the source's reputation (e.g., The New York Times is extremely careful about double-checking such facts). This is even more important with obviously controversial claims; all three paragraphs in the biography yesterday included the word "fringe", but none of the cited sources used that word. When you write a sentence, you should ask ”does the cited source really say this?” A synonym is fine (e.g., "started" for "founded"), but a statement shouldn't depend on inference or reading between the lines for implied meanings. ––Agyle (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect?

The first mention of Scott Wollter in the article, as well as his name in the infobox, are both redirects to the article itself. Shouldn't these be unlinked, if WP has no article on him? Clevelander96 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs the Pseudoscience label/tag added.

Other, similar kinds of things as Wolter does with this show have properly been labeled "pseudoscience" in wiki. Frankly what Wolter does doesn't even come up to the level of pseudoscience; it's pure unadulterated fiction, masquerading as science. However, I'd be happy if at least got the big pseudoscience label attached to it, in want of a better term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.124.180 (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That would require a reliable source calling it pseudoscience; we cannot just decide for ourselves that we should label it in that way. Huon (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Genre

I don't think there are independnet sources calling it either "science" or "pseudoscience", either a "documentary" or a "mockumentary". Its predecessor, Holy Grail in America, was described as "entertainment", so I'll go with that. The alternatives would be to not give a genre at all, or to find a source for the genre. Huon (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)