Talk:David Hatcher Childress

Photo

Why was the photo removed? I received this photo from Childress himself! What the heck was wrong with it???Serapisia 07:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)SerapisiaSerapisia 07:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How does one contribute a photo to wikipedia?

I have all of Harry Osoff's photos of David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.145 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous coward attack on me

I seem to have attracted a fan. :-) Probably jealous because my website is mentioned favorably in Archaeology magazine, he's repeatedly edited the main article to make libellous attacks on me. I'm a bit worried about the 3R rule so I'll leave it for the moment to see if an admin or someone sorts it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I see the loser is back with a different IP address.--Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I hadn't noticed the addition of a claim for Childress's vast fortune. That's sudden, in 2002 he had to take out a mortgage to buy property in Arizona and turn to Harry Osoff for help with his failing restaurant/tavern in Kempton. Still, Childress is a very successful, perhaps the most successful, publisher of fringe literature in the US, I will give him that. And his writing style isn't all that bad either.--Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed "vandalism" of the Childress article, what goes around comes around. Weller has taken great delight in adding unfavorable information obviously because he has some personal vendetta aginst Childress. Yet, when the same is done to him, he screams bloody murder!, vandalism!, libel! Methinks he doth protest too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.117.27 (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have a stalker. :-) Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, NPOV means that this isn't meant to be a fanboy site for Childress or a site to make personal attacks on anyone. If anonymous coward doesn't like that, tough. However, I've taken this opportunity to correct something about Childress and make it clear that he relies on channelled information from other writers, he doesn't channel himself so far as I know.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

David Hatcher Childress did not "channel" his information, but is the result of extensive travel and reflection. His theories are presented with a grain of salt, but there is enough evidence that they should be taken seriously, instead of being dismissed by so-called "serious" academics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.109.12 (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above and as I edited the article, Childress openly uses information channelled by other writers. He doesn't try to hide the fact. But no, there is no reason to take his ideas (hardly theories) seriously.Doug Weller (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug - your "fan" is most likely Jerry E. Smith, one of David's authors. Jerry originally wrote the wiki bio as a promotion piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.151 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. Doug Weller (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug - David got most of his stuff from Augustus LePlongeon, but he does not know it. If you write to me I'll be happy to send you the entire story. PS - It looks like the WO debate has come to a screeching halt. - E.P. Grondine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.168 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Question re potential Richard Kieninger article

(copy and paste from User talk:74.39.32.168)

Richard Kieninger died in 2001, and was convicted of a federal felony in Texas. How does one start a wiki entry for Richard Kieninger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.168 (talk • contribs) 19 October 2008

The easiest way to go about it is to simply enter "Richard Kieninger" into the search text box on the upper left side of the page here on Wiki, hit "go" and you will reach the search results page. Near the top of that page (below "No article title matches") you'll notice a number of options available for you in terms of starting new articles. If you have limited experience in starting brand new articles it's a good idea to thoroughly read and understand this [1] first. I'm already aware of the controversy surrounding Kieninger, including the fact that he was a convicted criminal and also that enough appropriate reliable published sources are available to put together what I think might be a potentially interesting article regarding him, actually I'm hoping someone will do it. But (and this is an important "but") according to Wikipedia policy, all allegations in articles *must* be able to be supported by reliably sourced citations, there are no exceptions to this. I can guarantee you that phrases such as "cult leader, con man, and sexual predator extraordinaire" being applied to anyone in an article (whether the subject is alive *or* dead) are extremely unlikely to be allowed into Wikipedia by any competent editor, even at basic level they violate the formal tone of encyclopedia.

Then how do wiki editors describe a cult leader, con man, and sexual predator? What words are used, when those of normal discourse are not allowed?

It's very important to remember that information being added to Wiki must be written from a strictly neutral point of view, reading and understanding WP:NPOV will help you out in that department, please don't try to use a new article as a means of advocating for a particular perspective on a subject (good or bad) many editors will see through that almost immediately and it will be edited appropriately according to the circumstances. Keep in mind that if an allegation regarding someone can't be supported in the article by a citation derived from a reliable previously published source, in all likelihood it will be removed. If I can answer any questions you might have regarding this feel free to contact me here, or on my own discussion page. Have fun editing, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that some of the material that I've placed citation request tags on in this article is in my opinion somewhat dubious in terms of its relevancy and I'm prepared to edit it out in the not too distant future. After reviewing the article and the content of some of the recent attempted edits, I'm inclined to believe that an editing agenda is in play here that leans toward heightening the perception that Kieninger's connection to Childress is somewhat more profound than what the reference material currently being provided supports. There is ample evidence in the current cited material contained in the article to support a connection between the two; the point is made. The difficulty arises when it seems to me Kieninger is being given "undue weight"

Hi Decontructor - What we're discussing here is the largest cult in the US, which is distributed through Barnes and Nobles and Borders bookstore in the country, and via late night radio, though few are aware of it, as Childress goes to great lengths to keep his history concealed, as he does his ties to militia groups in the US (you can google that, if you like). By Childress's own admission, his "alternative history" was written using copies of the Lemurian Fellowship's Teaching Lessons "borrowed" by Richard Kieninger. And Richard Kieninger used cult techniques of though control, as outlined by Steven Hassan in "overcoming Cult Mind Control".

As far as bias is concerned "Alternative history" is not correct, as most of the nonsense Childress recycled for his "Lost Cities" series of books came from Augustus LePlongeon, via Lilian V. Bense, cia the Lemurian Fellowship, or from Augustus Le Plongeon via James Churchward. There's nothing "alternative" about it, it is simply early American theosophist nonsense repackaged. "Cult archaeology" would be far more descriptive.

There's nothing neutral in your edits, as Richard's criminal activites are now described as "Texas Separatist". ROT went about with weapons and took their neighbors hostage. Now in your words they are not "militia" but "Texas Separatist". Well, no Texan ever elected them to separate. This is like sprarying perfume on manure and calling it a "rose".

Childress was Richard Kieninger's business partner to the day he died.

[2] in an article which supposedly has Childress as its subject. In my opinion it is more appropriate to provide a properly weighted npov position regarding Childress in this article and simply put together a separate properly referenced Kieninger article which can be linked to, let the readers draw their own conclusions, our job as editors isn't to push a particular perspective, it's to provide a neutral accurate properly referenced synopsis of the material we're dealing with. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a biography of Richard Kieninger, "Amazing Stories" . David got his start as Richard Kieninger's business partner in the Stellar Research Institute, and his writings make extensive use of the Lemurian Fellowship's Teaching Lessons, which Kieninger stole to form his cult. And it was a cult, as you can check off Kieninger's techniques against the list of techniques given by Steve Hassan in his book "Overcoming Cult Mind Control", the definitive work on cults. And that's a NPOV.

Childress and his confederates' works rely heavily on Kieniger's "sacred science", the definition for which see Hassan, op.cit..

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.151 (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to let you know that I appreciate you taking the time to respond here on the discussion page, it really helps other editors who are trying to understand your position and it shows good faith on your part, which is *always* appreciated. Okay, let's look at the material you've recently added. Actually, let's start with your conjecture that Kieninger's group meets Hassan's criteria for what constitutes a "cult". I'd like to point out that as far as I know; because there is no reference currently provided; that potentially provocative interpretation is one you developed on your own, in other words, it violates what Wikipedia policy calls the "no original research" rule.WP:OR

one problem is that wikipedia has no definition of cult, even though a NPOV one is given by Hassan, op.cit. I've taken a look at the Jim Jones piece to article to see how you work around this.

As unpleasant as it sounds, ideally, a Wikipedia contributor's job is primarily one of "regurgitation", according to policy,we are only permitted to neutrally present responsibly referenced material that has already been previously published in a reliable source, there is no allowance at all for 'creativity' and ideally our own opinions on a given subject are quite simply irrelevant. It's about as far as you can get from "creative writing", at least in a literal sense, I'm afraid we're merely scribes here not "innovators". Your referencing of Augustus Le Plongeon

set out above, LePLongeon's writings were used by Lilian V. Bense, who was active in the Lemurian Fellowship, a path of spiritual study which Richard stole to form his cult.

is intriguing, but its relevancy in a general biographical article with Childress as its subject is somewhat tenuous in my opinion. If I'm understanding what you're implying correctly, it might provide an interesting addition to the proposed Kieninger article, but again, only if properly referenced from a reliable source. Always keep in mind though; "no original research" (see above). Finally I'd like to address the inclusion of the material regarding Frank Collin.

Another of Childress's key business partners.

I'm afraid that once again I'd have to raise the problem of questionable relevancy, as well as challenge its presence on the basis of in my opinion constituting a non "neutral point of view"WP:NPOV in this context. I'd like to suggest to you that in the past Collin has also purportedly written for instance for Fate magazine.It seems inherently unfair and inaccurate to me, because of that, if someone were to try and insinuate in an article that Fate magazine or its publishers were somehow therefor supporters of "neo-Nazi" political causes.

Yes, but did FATE magazine ever promote the fraudulent artifacts of Russell Burrows, one of Collin's guards at Pontiac Prison? And its not simply one article. Frank Joseph Collin was another of Childress' business partners.

you are also unaware of Childress's intimate business relationship with Duncan Roads, publisher of NEXUS magazine, one of the few publications to be declared anti-semetic by the state of Israel. This was covered in an article in the New Statesman some years back, but I'll have to go back and see what all its authors included.

You could add both Ancient American and NEXUS to the links section, as well as Atlatis Rising.

Part of the same cabal, and all beneficiaries of Richard Kieninger's mailing list, though that can not be mentioned directly on wikipedia, as it has no formal publication. Harry Osoff does send his regards.

I have little doubt, that if someone tried to 'slide' that into the Fate article, that it would quickly be challenged and removed. Editing and contributing to Wikipedia is a thankless (although rewarding) endeavour in some ways, to do an acceptable job that both complies with policy and provides accurate well referenced information to readers is sometimes very difficult. If you have any questions or comments regarding what I've written here, feel free to give me a shout. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One important source of information that I neglected to mention when you're thinking about writing biographical articles is WP:LIVE. I think you'll find that that particular bit of policy is taken quite seriously by many editors and that because of its potential legal implications failure to apply it when writing applicable articles will be regarded as a serious breach. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I sort of like your challenge to citations. Legal consequences - First off, DHC by his own admission is a public figure. Two, if a fact is referenced to DHC's own words in one of his own books cited in the books section, then the burden of proof is established.

In addition to the two suits mentioned, we also have the use of Baigent and Leigh's work by Childress, which Dan Brown mentioned in his deposition in their plagiarism suit against him for the Da Vinci Code.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.249.12 (talk • contribs) 22 October 2008

I'm going to have to ask you to *please* do *not* intersperse your responses to posts within the body of the text of the postings you're replying to and also please do not alter the wording of existing posts, both practises make it extremely difficult to follow what's being discussed. When you are making a response, simply type your thoughts at the very bottom of the existing posts, or if your response pertains only to a point made in someones single posting, insert your reply at the bottom of that individual posting. I'm anticipating that other editors will shortly be involved in this exchange and if you continue to engage in those practises, many of them will simply be left hopelessly confused. I'm hoping to respond to the points you've raised later this evening. In the meantime, it may be helpful if all interested parties carefully review all the relevant policies I've linked to above and any other that they think might have a bearing. None of what I'm saying here is arbitrary in nature in terms of pointing out what I think are the pertinent points of policy, I think you'll find that many other editors would choose to be somewhat less "lenient" in their interpretation, this is especially true because we're dealing with a "biography of a living person". I applied the template that's currently at the top of the page because I still have concerns regarding the potentially unsupported (and perhaps unsupportable) negative inferences that can be drawn from some of the material that continues to be in the article. Later tonight, I'm also hoping to give a heads up on the living persons biography noticeboard, I apologize for not doing this already, as I'm somewhat pressed for time until later. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to other editors, as David Hatcher Childress's well attested direct connections with Richard Kieninger seem to end up "purportedly" in you edits. Your edits are not arbitrary, but rather a whitewash. Your reasons for making them have to do with your own background, and it would be best if a trained archaeologist took over the edits.

As far as interspersing goes, there's so many arbitrary errors of fact in your replies that it's best to handle each of them one at a time, lest any of them remain unchallenged.

Richard Kieninger was a cult leader, a con man, and a sexual predator who took a delight in deceiving people and using those deceptions to exploit them. That's how the "real estate" got developed by Richard, using his followers' labor and money. Now if you want to describe Richard Kieninger as a "real estate developer", I think that that says volumes about your own biases. The same goes for your description of the Republic of Texas militia group as "Texas separatists".

Ultimately most of Childress's nonsense goes back to Augustus LePlongeon, and that can be shown in a really straight line which passes through Richard Kieninger. If you want to describe theosophist materials from the turn of the last century as "New Age", then again it says volumes about you biases. That is not simply a whitewash, but a coverup.

Childress was Kieninger's close business partner and enabled Kieninger in his deceptions throughout his entire life.

Childress's skillful exploitation of the materials Richard "appropriated" from the Lemurian Fellowship and his ties to other "new age' publishers are the keys to the cult-archaeology of today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.170 (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that it's always a good idea to assume "good faith"WP:AGF when dealing with your fellow editors here in Wikipedia and to reserve your criticisms to discussions regarding improving the content of the material, negative personal remarks are a violation of policy. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me try it this way. Your personal beliefs are interfering with a presentation of facts. New Age? There is nothing "New" in regurgitated Augustus LePlongeon's Theosophist materials from the turn of the last century. Your edits of my edits of the Childress puff piece which his writer Jerry E. Smith wrote as a promotional piece reveal your incapability of doing so objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.175 (talk • contribs)

Make no mistake, I'm totally convinced that you are quite sincere in the personal beliefs that you hold regarding both Childress and Kieninger. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

These are facts, not personal beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.175 (talk • contribs)

The difficulty arises when an attempt is made to present material in an article in such a way as to lead the reader to draw specific inferences (in this case negative) about the subject, without providing references that directly support those claims. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Provide the references, and find them removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.175 (talk • contribs)

This is not permitted in the encyclopedia according to policy, especially in those articles which have living persons as their subject. Based only on the references we have so far, I think it's relatively safe and reasonable to make two assumptions. Childress lived in Stelle at one point and later moved. He and Kieninger were involved as "business partners", in all likelihood in both travel and publishing endeavours. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are not assumptions, they are facts. Childres lived in Stelle, founded Adventures Unlimited tours to conduct his tours with Richard Kieninger for the Stellar Research Institute, and founded Adventures Unlimited Press to write his books, which relied for the most part on materials which Richard had appropriated from the Lemurian Fellowship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.175 (talk • contribs)

Beyond that, and again I'm attempting to use only the actual references we have so far, it gets a little hazier in my opinion. From the interview article, I think we can assume that Childress, at least at one point in his life, was "influenced" by Kieninger in his writing and publishing endeavours, judging by Childress' somewhat regular mention of things 'Lemurian' and knowing Childress' background.However there is a problem, when the term "influence" is used to connect Childress to Kieninger's less desirable activities through insinuation only, without benefit of a specific reference. Because in some instances Kieninger's 'activities' actually were criminal in nature,(an allegation supported by articles we've seen) to attempt to create the direct impression in an article that Childress himself was also somehow personally involved in these shenanigans, without benefit of any supporting citations would simply not be permitted in Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

At a basic level using the references in front of me, I'm just not convinced that Kieninger deserves the weight he currently receives in this article. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Much of what you're saying about Kieninger may or may not be ample fodder for the proposed separate article with him as the subject, but again, you would have to provide reputable references in that context as well. I will repeat this another time; a contributor to Wikipedia is not permitted to 'connect the dots' (ie no "theorizing"WP:OR) Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, these are not theories, they're facts, and your constant removal of published citations in your whitewash of this character is irritating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.175 (talk • contribs)

regarding a subject, without providing specific references from reputable sources to back up their position and again this is doubly so regarding articles about living personsWP:LIVE. In conclusion I'll very briefly (sorry everybody lol) outline what I see as areas of personal concern in the article. We need to nail down exactly what we mean by "influence" through the use of proper supporting citations, specifically. Finally, more justification must be provided for the amount of detail being provided for Kieninger, considering the information in the existing references I believe that undue weight is being applied to him in this article. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, David Hatcher Childress was Richard Kieninger's business partner throughout his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.175 (talk • contribs)

Barring the addition of reputable supporting citations, I am prepared to edit this article accordingly in the next couple of days. PS Thank you for not interspersing your comments with mine, it really makes it easier for other editors to make sense of what's going on. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope other editors do not have too much trouble following this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.175 (talk • contribs)

Ed, the problem seems to be that you know quite a bit about these people from personal contact, but you really can't use that knowledge in Wikipedia. Frustrating I'm sure, but that's the way we work here. Doug Weller (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Doug, once again, the problem is that I find the references removed. You want to try it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.175 (talk • contribs)

Doug, this morning's version was not too bad, but I did remove "purportedly" for well evidenced facts.

You're right about knowing more about David and Richard than deconstructor. [....] and as a result I have Bill Donovan's papers, though this information is unpublished. [...] and as a result I have had Osoff's rather complete cooperation as well. Kieninger betrayed multiple people, and depending on how well they recovered from their cult experience I have also had their cooperation.

But as all of this is unpublished, the problem is going to be keeping the published citations in place, despite deconstructor's efforts at a whitewash.

For example, deconstructor removes David's own mentions of the Lemurian Fellowship's Teaching Lessons. The locals tell me there was another suit involving copyright violations for "Extra Terrestrial Archaeology". "Anti-Gravity Handbook" was largely Bill Donovan's work, with unpaid for contributions by the authors distributed by Cadake Industries. And then there is David's use of Cadake's mailing list.

[...]Dan Brown's unwitting Da Vinci Code plagiarism is not really well know.

And then there's the problem of Augustus LePlongeon. Dealing with occult groups, there is so little published, and the Lemurian Fellowhip itself was and is rather private. Right now I do not even have good images of either Robert D. Stelle or Howard John Zitko.

The key here is publishing wikipedia articles on Kieninger, then on the Lemurian Fellowship, then linking it all back. That is the only way to publicly expose "cult archaeology" on wikipedia.

Who deconstructor really needs to talk to is John Moss [...]

Hi Doug - "purported" and "some of whose" were reincluded again, so I pulled them out again . And this discussion was edited to remove some of David's multiple "improperly acknowledged" use of other writers' materials.

Of course, along with Howard John Zitko and Robert D. Stelles's rather indirect ties to Augustus LePlongeon, James Churchward's direct ties to Augustus LePlongeon are not well known, even though Churchward directly stated them. Of course, if one were to cite David's own statements about his use of Churchward's books on "Lemuria" and "Mu", or indeed his reprinting of them, then those citations would be removed as have the others.

[...]

I'm going to go back and remove Jerry E. Simth's description of David's travels to China, even though it should be acknowledged that David was one of the first people to travel to China's archaeological sites. Another item which must be mentioned in David's favor is that he looked at the large megalithic structures whose construction mainstream archaeologists regularly glide on by.

If you're in contact with "deconstructor", then pass on the 13th draft of my Kieninger bio, if you would. Or you can send him my email address, and I'll do it myself.

Another problem is with using "cult" on wikipedia. While Kieninger used cult methods of thought control, the Lemurian Fellowship did not and does not, from what I can determine. "deconstructor" keeps on insisting on descrbing Kieninger as a "controversial New Age writer", when in fact he was a thief who stole the Teaching Lessons twice, and a cult leader ( decribed in Steve Hassan's list of methods of thought control in his definitive book on cults).

Nobody sets out to join a cult, sometimes they're just interested in the archaeological oddities of mans ancient past. So how do we keep people from being suckered in by cult archaeology?

PS - I added John Allegro, and Victor Clube & Bill Napier to the wikipedia "fringe science" entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.145 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see - How does one expand DHC's television appearances? If one cites the actual shows, such as "The Mysterious Origins of Man", then one has to go to a published piece on "The Mysterious Origins of Man", instead of just citing "The Mysterious Origins of Man". And then of course the fully cited article is simply struck, as though the actual show that DHC appeared on has no bearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.171 (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean exactly by "expand", but if you simply want to cite something to demonstrate the existence of the production, "The Mysterious Origins of Man", then [3] is sufficient in my opinion. Deconstructhis (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I'd like to propose a merger of the article Adventures Unlimited Press into this one. A search using Google and LexisNexis Academic produced almost nothing reliable regarding the publishing entity Adventures Unlimited, however running Childress himself generates fair bit of material that is still not covered in his present article; in particular regarding his activities in Australia and New Zealand in the 90's. Because of this imbalance in the availability of solid references regarding the two subjects, I propose we merge the 'lesser known' one into the Childress article itself and focus on improving it. If this proposal is successful, I will afterwards add the new material and references to the Childress article, after consensus is reached regarding what material is appropriately merged from "Adventures Unlimited Press". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. dougweller (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed Childress's use of the Adamski-Steckling materials for his "Extra-Terrestrial Archaeology": http://www.philipcoppens.com/moon.html

Also, Stephanie Caruana's original "Gemstone Files". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.160.10 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's no mention of Dan Brown's use of materials Childress used from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and his mention of it in the copyright trial.

You might want to include a link for Jerry E. Smith to the links section.

If you have access to Dutch or German LexisNexis, your search may be more productive. Look for Frontier Sciences of Amsterdam as well.64.107.160.10 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)64.107.160.10 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on Standard Practices for Author Bios

Is it standard practice for wikipedia editors to list civil and or legal issues for every bio that is published on wikipedia? If it is not applied to all "bios" as a standard practice when such information is available and verifiable from a credible source, it would seem to me that notating it "here and there" on a select few - especially those already considered "controversial" based on some of the discussions on this page - constitutes an attempt to create a negative bias for the subject of the biography - such as the ones listed on Childress' page in a rather creatively manipulative way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.181.89 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed something weird

I removed " He has been involved in two lawsuits regarding publishing. One failed after expiry of a statute of limitations and the other, involving publication of a master's thesis without permission, was settled out of court." Who the hell put that in there? Since this is stupendously trivial I removed it. Beethoven was involved in numerous lawsuits and there isn't a mention of it on his page. And do you know why? Because it would be a really stupid thing to mention. Gingermint (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it before I read this since you didn't explain in an edit summary. But I'd challenge your removal. The guy's a publisher and this was about publishing. Beethoven's best known lawsuit was about custody of his nephew (which despite your claim has substantial coverage in the article, 3 paragraphs, and I doubt if anyone would object to adding the metronome suit. But do take it to WP:BLPN if you think it shouldn't be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Changes

At the risk of kicking a hornet’s nest, since this article seems to have reached a certain equilibrium, David Hatcher Childress and I have decided at long last to contribute to how it reads. We have not spent much time following the ins and outs of the Wikipedia process, but have tuned in from time to time and reviewed with amazement, amusement and horror the action on the story of his life and career.

The article was not posted as a promo piece by our employee Jerry E. Smith as alleged, but by a definite fan of David’s who had been on one of our World Explorers trips. The article seems to have been quickly taken over by Ed Grondine, who, as editor Deconstructhis correctly ascertained, had taken an extreme interest in Richard Kieninger’s activities and wanted very much to tie David to Richard. Although some of this has been tempered, the article is still erroneous and misleading in this regard and I propose certain changes. David knew Richard in the 1980s in Stelle and led a couple of Stelle groups (including Kieninger) to Egypt and Peru. Richard was never a partner in David’s travel business or any other. The article cited as saying this (“Atlanthis Ho!”) does not call Kieninger a partner, and in fact notes that David would lead the groups around and then continue his travels to research his Lost Cities books.

The last time Kieninger and Childress talked was in the early 1990s. Richard founded the Adelphi Group in Texas (which David has never visited). We at Adventures Unlimited continued to sell the Adelphi Group’s books in our mail order catalog until shortly after Kieninger’s death in 2001. The books were ordered by David’s employees and the orders were fulfilled by Richard’s Adelphi Group with no direct communication between the two men. Our ordering and invoicing records are available for inspection.

Kieninger did not have an undue influence on David’s books, either. The Ultimate Frontier figures as one of hundreds of books listed in the Lost Cities books’ Bibliographies and Footnotes. Of the two books directly cited as backing up the remark about Kieninger’s influence (footnote 3), the first refers to the Lemuria book. The reference there can be found on the cited page, but again, is one of 217 sources mentioned in the book. The second citation refers to the China book. I cannot find anything to do with Kieninger, The Ultimate Frontier or Lemurian Fellowship ideology on the pages referenced. David would attribute the greatest influences on his work as being Erich von Daniken, Thor Heyerdahl and Charles Berlitz, two of whom were named in the aforementioned article “Atlantis Ho!”: “Childress viewed his travels through the lens of Heyerdahl and Swiss writer Erich von Daniken…”

So, I propose deleting “influenced by Keininger’s ideas” at the end of par. 1 under Life and Career, and “in partnership with Kieninger” in the second sentence of the second paragraph under Life and Career.

In the first paragraph of the article, the subjects our books cover are cited to the “Atlantis Ho!” article, which in fact, lists none of those subjects, instead including “UFOs, secret societies, suppressed technology, cryptozoology, conspiracy theory and ‘alternative energy.’” The list in the Wikipedia page is not wrong per se, so maybe we could just add cryptozoology and suppressed technology to the list given.

Also in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article, mention is made that David claims no academic credentials. This is true, and he usually mentions this at the beginning of his public presentations. I think this comment was added, however, to disparage his image, and would propose adding something at the end of that sentence like: “, having left college after one year to pursue his own path in investigating and experiencing the mysteries of the world about which he would later write.” I do not think anyone who knows him would argue his encyclopedic knowledge of the subjects that interest him, and his general intelligence.

I see that the subject of the lawsuits has been a bone of contention. I think this was also added to disparage the image of Adventures Unlimited, but Doug Weller seems to think it’s important for people to know this about our company. I would like to put this in context, then, and add to the end of the sentence mentioning the two lawsuits: “since he founded his company in 1984.” This makes it clear that only two lawsuits were brought in over 25 years of publishing, and that lawsuits at Adventures Unlimited are aberrations rather than commonplace events. If the references to the lawsuits must remain, I would also add a sentence after “settled out of court” as follows: “Childress describes these suits humorously in Chapter 5 of his autobiographical book ‘A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Armageddon.’” A citation would then need to be added for that book.

One final note: the “Atlantis Ho” article is cited as saying David founded the World Explorers Club in 1991. In fact, the article says 1992, which is correct.

As mentioned, we do not intend to become active players in the Wikipedia process, but would like to set the record straight. We can be reached for comment – see adventuresunlimitedpress.com for contact info.

Thanks, Jennifer Bolm (wife of David Hatcher Childress) Jenmb (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jennifer, welcome to wikipedia.  :-)   I hope the hornets-nest has not been as bad as you feared. Since sometimes requests take a bit of time to get noticed, I recommend that in the future, you post messages here on the article-talkpage (just as you did in 2011 last time), but then please visit the friendly folks at the WP:TEAHOUSE to let some human know about your request. This is likely to get a quicker response, and with any luck, keep the horror to a minimum... though I cannot promise maximized amazement.  ;-)

  As you may have guessed, *directly* editing the biography-page of one's self or spouse or boss or similar, is frowned upon, as a shortcut to some level of neutrality; thanks for your restraint, please continue to post on talkpages for best results. It *does* look like most of your 2011 corrections were already implemented, and I've tried to finish up the others, see below. A couple questions, do you have any additional book reviews, newspapers coverage, that sort of thing? They don't have to be written in English, nor do they have to be online, just some kind of mainstream fact-checked press-coverage (either as a URL or a date/title/publisher). Not all sources satisfy the byzantine rules, but if you can list what you know, the folks here with experience applying the rules can do the rest, though it may not be immediate. Also, does David want his birthday in the bio? We usually put that in, unless the person objects. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Already fixed:

1. influenced by Keininger’s ideas  Done
2. The Ultimate Frontier gave him a book  Partly done , grammar needed work , now  Done
3. in partnership with Kieninger  Done
4. UFOs,  Done
5. autobiographic book  Done
6. since 1984  Done but I reorganized a bit, so now  Done again
7. secret societies,  Partly done w/ Templars , now  Done
8. ‘alternative energy.’  Partly done w/ Tesla , now  Done
9. add cryptozoology  Partly done in body-text , now  Done
10. add suppressed technology  Partly done w/ vimana , now  Done

Fixed today:

1. WEXclub founded in 1991 1992
2. ... Childress went to University of Montana-Missoula to study archaeology,
3. but left college in 1976 at 19 to begin travelling in pursuit of his archaeological interests.[1][b]
4. After several years in Asia and then Africa, Childress moved in 1983...
5. influences include Erich von Daniken and Thor Heyerdahl (as well as Charles Berlitz)

Changes list of subjects from this:

... subjects such as pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, Atlantis, Lemuria, Ancient astronauts, UFOs, Nikola Tesla, the Knights Templar, lost cities and vimana aircraft.

To this rewrite:

... primarily concentrate on lost cities (including Atlantis & Lemuria plus pole shifts & the hollow earth as well as pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact), suppressed technology[1] (Nikola Tesla & free energy & UFOs & ancient astronauts & anti-gravity & vimana aircraft), and secret societies[1] (including the Knights Templar), plus more recently time travel and cryptozoology (yeti & sasquatch). Childress refers to himself as a "rogue archaelogist".[1][a]

I think this rewrite still summarizes the breadth of David's work, but also ties the pieces together: interest in lost cities, in turn led to interest in ancient technologies, and thence to suppressed technologies, plus secret societies. Cryptozoology came later. Is this anywhere close to accurate, and helpful to the readership? Danke. p.s. There was something about nazca lines on the interwebs, but not Reliably Sourced; is this something worth mentioning in the article? p.p.s. Oh... and if you can help upgrade the list of publications... they have titles and ISBNs, but not years of publication, number of pages, hardback/paperback/ebook, and the other usual details. Also, prolly need to check that the titles and numbers are accurate, for good measure.  :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Education

...is a must here. I see absolutely nothing about Chidlress' education. I have always wondered about that because I have nothing contra amateurs, but I sure hate an amateur who poses as a full-fledged academic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.147.88 (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverting to improper punctuation and typeface.

Dougweller: I corrected the quotation you have so that there would not be a double quote inside a double quote and to restore the italics that was in the original work you cited. I guess you find it "not helpful" (your words) to have correct copy edits and exact quotations in your insertions?

That's why we ask editors to use WP:Edit summaries. I'd completely forgotten that edit. However, I'm not sure why you've changed it from the original which had "Atlantean League", not 'Atlantean League'. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a nested quote within a double quote and therefore takes a single quote. See the article Nested quotation. For the same reason, the phrase (inside a double quote which begins "Pseudo-archaeologists ...") which currently reads "sailed the world spreading a megalithic culture, and wore red turbans over their blond hair" should read: 'sailed the world spreading a megalithic culture, and wore red turbans over their blond hair' (Childress ...

‎AnthroMimus, I think that would be confusing. I understand about nested quotes, but if you have 'Atlantean League' and then 'sailed the world' I think readers would find it confusing. I'm also not sure if the author intended "Atlanean League" to be "scare quotes" or not. I think he did, and if so it should still have scare quotes. Could you please remember to sign your edits with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller: So be it. I had never heard of an exception to nesting quotes based on diving whether the author intended it to be "scare quotes" or on assumptions about the confusability of the reader, but if such exceptions to proper copyediting exist, you ought to add them to the Nested quotation article, so that there would be one place to find it (it not being in, for example, The Chicago Manual of Style). AnthroMimus (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

AnthroMimus, that would be better in our guidelines if it belongs anywhere. Did you mean 'divining'? I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Make it a block quote; the structure of the section will be more obvious and the problem of nesting will go away. Dicklyon (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I did that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Doh! I should have thought of that myself, since I did it on the MOS talk page. Many thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like garbage to me, I'm removing it. You seem to have article ownership issues and an axe to grind. Either way, this is not how article sections are written. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing image

Okay we are missing a photo of him. We may need to take a photo of him from Ancient Aliens and put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Hatcher Childress. 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/20140109150647/http://www.davidhatcherchildress.com/?q=biography to http://www.davidhatcherchildress.com/?q=biography
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070717180547/http://wexclub.com/pages/contact.html to http://wexclub.com/pages/contact.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe usable

Colavito on Acient Atom Bombs covers a lot of material promoted by Childress. Maybe not usable for information on the person per WP:BLPRS and WP:SPS but perhaps usable about popular claims... http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id9.html —PaleoNeonate – 03:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

POV

Wikipedia is often a place for anyone with an axe to grind. Here, people who claim to be skeptics (who may be considered cynics) have presented Childress as promoting "pseudo science" It is an example of Wikipedia's authors and editors passing along their personal opinions as facts. This it seems, is a vulgar practice and seems, like a highly dishonest one. 2601:1C0:7182:B8E0:81FF:61C0:F2D6:C490 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We have to go by what reliable sources say. If you can find reliable sources that do not assess Childress' work to be pseudos science, you are welcome to include them in the article. See WP:NPOV. Hypnôs (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Compare this article with others that simply don't assassinate their character. And, it's silly and unscientific to try and prove a negative. Whoever wrote this article seems to have some weird personal agenda. 2601:1C0:7182:B8E0:81FF:61C0:F2D6:C490 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)