This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There were a few problems with this article, as first written, that I have corrected. Most are simply styalistic changes to make it read better. The greatest change was in deleting the statement: "He has now established himself as one of the worlds leading authorities on the history of Freemasonry and science..." I would hardly say that Mr. Lomas has "established himself as a leading authority" on anything other than how to write a best selling book. As far as his "authority" on Freemasonry goes, most historians find his theories to be highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst. Blueboar 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I accept some moderations to a page I need not have gone to the trouble to add. Some changes are great. I do, however, wish to maintain the factual information about Lewis Masonic because it is a notable publisher as part of Freemasonic history. Thanks to Blueboar for returning it, however I have further returned the good old historical bit since there's no harm at all in presenting this useful historical information to the end-user. :-) I accept the initial response from Blueboar regarding the questionable statement I made surrounding Lomas' significance in Freemasonry and science. I actually agree at removing science - it was far too sweeping - but I would like to return the former claim on part of Freemasonry since statistically the best-selling author is. Blueboar removed a statement about the number of languages worldwide the Hiram Key has been translated in. I wholly accept this for the time being until I source where I came across this important data. Finally, I would like to offer Blueboar the chance to retract his most bizarre statement. It regards his libellous last point and substantial unfounded claim that "most historians find [Lomas'] theories to be highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst". Are you just proving that it isn't just myself who can romantically and quite accidentally make a tad sweeping statement? :-) Moreover, to be quite frank, you are merely subjectively dismissing a statement in a style that can only lead to the beginning of petty policing whereby we may both keep altering the information presented. And besides, I did say "one of the". Dr Lomas' books are very much best-selling. What is your point? Are you saying that this is of no concern when deciding upon the relevance of a person's research? Have you sold your findings around the world millions times over? Oh, and not forgetting the view that your findings might be 'highly speculative' and 'out right rubbish at worst'. Come on, I hardly think theories that are "highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst" would be so well travelled and referenced. Xzrox Wednesday 11th January 2006 @ 3.46 GMT
I added a controversy section to point out to readers the criticisms of Lomas' work. This is my first major addition to the Wikipedia, so please do what's necessary if I have wrecked NPOV. I think what I wrote is fair and accurate. Intelligent Masons don't buy into the poor scholarship. In my opinion, the profit from book sales is Lomas' motivation.
I note that the controversy section has devolved into a "who likes Lomas and who doesn't" sniping contest. Much of what was added was POV... on both sides of the argument. First, many of the statements were not about Lomas or his work, but about the people commenting on it (such as the statements about the "United Grand Lodge of America being critical of AASR SJ.) (by the way... what is the UGLA? As far as I know there is no such beast?... at least not in regular recognized Masonry... but I digress). Anyway... I have pared the section back to plain verifyable statements of Fact... some people do not agree with Lomas (short list), others do agree (short list). If you need to expand on these facts, please keep focused on positive and negative comments about LOMAS and his work... not positive and negative comments about the commentators. Blueboar 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be atrend occurring whereby one or two editors of various articles relating to freemasonry are choosing to insert highly POV material into encyclopedic discussions. Whatever incidents may have caused the formation of the Unite Grand Lodge of America, wiki is not a soapbox for addressing these concerns. A number of UGLA persons have lamented in various foums how due process is not being followed in various US jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and then here on wiki we see what appears to be a UGLA supporter trying defy community guidelines regarding how the encyclopedia should be modified. For example, the need for NPOV, and the need to avoid personal attacks.-- Vidkun 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The United Grand Lodge of America is irregular and clandestine. It is not in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England or any other Regular Grand Lodge, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, some of the editors of this article think it's a personal attack to say that Lomas uses the creeping assertion fallacy (saying "It seems that Hiram was a pharoah" and then later claiming "We've proven that Hiram was a pharoah."). If Lomas had evidence, then his claims would be valid. I'll sit and wait for such evidence. . . Prewitt81
My brothers... irregular or regular as you choose... I would like to ask you all to back up a second and think. This article is a biographical sketch of Robert Lomas. It needs to focus ON Mr. Lomas, and not on what we may think about him or his work. Now, I think the "controversy" section is valid, but only because his work has engendered controversy. We need to keep this NPOV. It is fair to say that X group thinks Lomas's theory is flawed, while Y group diagrees and thinks his theory is valid. The statements need to be cited, but they are fair statements. It is not fair or NPOV to say B group thinks that C group is full of crap or visa versa. Please... let's keep this focused on Mr. Lomas and his theories and not on our personal agendas. This relates to both Lomas supporters and Lomas detractors. If you need to do so, please read WP:NPOV. Finally... Please remember that this is not a lodge meeting. Regularity does not matter here. NONE of us are Masons here... we are all nothing but fellow editors. As such we should be civil and work together to create a good article. I'll step off my soapbox now. Thank you. Blueboar 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems this entire page is slowly becoming a vanity page, as the additions of information by Martin Faulks and Peter Gower (wiki editors) seem to directly refer to an interview by Peter Gower of Martin Faulks. Isn't this what is considered original research?-- Vidkun 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added disambiguation to the intro, Lomas is a Business lecturer not a profesisonal historian, the intro as it stood lent more weight to his authority than was appropriate.
The article needs a more complete list of his work, at the moment it focusses only on Masonic titles, his marketing and IT work needs to be listed as well, unfortunately his own website doesn't list them.
I've removed the UGLA link as linkspam. It's not referred to in the article and it looks to be irregular, associating him with it does him a dis-service.
This needs a lot of structural work and some content work to reduce POV, at the moment it is a vanity page but it is notable enough to need to be here. ALR 13:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It poses little impact to the article itself, but the interview of Martin Faulks was conducted by "Peter Gower"??? Peter Gower is the name used in a number of Masonic exposes, and occasionally as the example name in some Masonic cypher books and monitorial works instead of "Mr. A. . . B. . .", and is said to be a corruption of Pythogoras. That interview is considered a serious piece of work?-- Vidkun 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking back on previous edits, the original seems fine. I don't actually see any problem. And I don't see why it has to be turned in to some kind of attack at this historian. - THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Lomas is not a historian, he writes fantasy novels which masquerade as historical research. Yes, it would seem Lomas dabbles in lots of fields, but so do lots of people; at professional levels. For the sake of example, would you say Bill Gates can only be one of a coder, a philanthropist, a businessman, a speaker? Come off it. The changes look bitter, especially when making claims such as 'amateur historian' - be careful when using such terminology - and Lomas would appear to be more of a professional in the field of freemasonry than business when you look at his bibliography and aclaim he has received in the fields he writes. Don't fall in to the trap of only citing/taking on board negative criticism of artists because it looks subjective. The revert is fine because it makes a simple point whilst not displaying any bitterness towards this person. I don't see any reason why it needs to be altered again. 18:43, 13 May 2006 (BST)
The folling lines were added to the end of the "controversy" section:
I have removed them not because I disagree in any way... but because I have no idea what they are trying to say... the sentence structure of the first sentence is so muddled that it makes no sense... does it mean Lomas proved his critics wrong? Did he prove them right? What does "proven from detailing" mean? And what is Lomas's technique on the Megalithic Yard? etc. Blueboar 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering if we really need such in depth descriptions of Lomas's books ... I think these would work better as seperate articles on each book. We could provide a shorter synopsis here if it is needed. Blueboar 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is much less POV now, so I have removed the tag. If you object, replace it, but please say why. Blueboar 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This section takes up a great deal of the article and is completely unreferenced. I don't think this much detail is necessary - pertinent points covered in secondary sources can be worked in to the prose of the article. Does anyone know offhand where these summaries might have come from or what references were used to write them? What do you think of drastically shortening that bit? Shell babelfish 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I provided a citation to back up the fact that Lomas's work has been classified as "Pseudo-history". It was removed as being "libelous and incorrect". That may be... but we are not the one's making that claim. We are simply repeating what others have said. And it isn't just one source... Here is another. As much as some may not like it, Lomas's work is considered to be pseudo-history. We should mention that fact. Blueboar 19:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well said Shell. "I was only following somebody else's orders" has never been a valid defense.If interviews from the British Broadcasting Corporation, which notes Lomas's work has produced a number of best sellers is not considered evidence to support the use of "best-selling" in the introduction the comments of a few fringe booksellers seem even less valid. I would suggest we keep to facts in the Introduction and Background and keep the comments for the work itself or the controversy section. Using Wikipedia pages to simply attack somebody you don't like or even bulling up somebody you do like brings the whole project into disrepute.
The evidence I have added to the article, showing that Lomas's views on the formation of the Royal Society and its links to Freemasonry are respected enough for him to be invited to give a Wednesday evening Public Lecture at Gresham College, which is the third oldest University in Britain after Oxford and Cambridge is a fact. The lecture was well-received (I was present and saw it) and has been incorporated into the distance learning program of Gresham lectures as per reference. Blueboar, if you are sincere in your search for reliable sources to prove or disprove Lomas's attitude to facts you will ake the trouble to view the lecture, you will notice that the Gresham Professor who introduces Lomas praises his all-round scholarship and achievements in IT and Fire Brigade Command and Control. At no time is any suggestion made that Lomas invents false facts (which is the implication of pseudo) to support his viewpoint. Lomas is controversial and people either seem love him or hate him, but it is his views which are questioned not his knowledge of facts. I submit that in the light of this evidence Blueboar you should ceases your campaign to label an honest, if free-thinking scholar, with a libelous label in the introduction to a page on him and keep comments on Lomas's conclusions to the controversy section where they belong. You will find plenty of people who hate him and call him names in the Masonic establishment and I agree it is fair to report them, but likewise if WIkipedia is ever to be taken serious is should maintain a clear line between facts and opinion. The opinion that Lomas is a fraud is not one shared by the UK academic establishment or he would not have been given the honor of being asked to deliver a Public Lecture at Gresham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.68.134 ( talk) 10:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Continuing on the discussion above, we now seem to be edit warring over whether to categorize Lomas as a "Historian of Freemasonry". Lomas's books are clearly pseudohistory. His works are conjectural and filled with suppositional leaps of logic (The Ancient Egyptians had certain beliefs... suppose that these beliefs influenced early Christianity... Now suppose that the early Christians had hidden texts that demonstrate this which they hid under the ruins of the Temple... The Knights Templars might have found them... since there is a legend that the Freemasons might be decendants of the Templars... therefore there is a direct connection between the Ancient Egyptians and Freemasonry). This is not History! This is pseudohistory. We can not call Lomas a "Historian of Freemasonry". Blueboar ( talk) 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not suppose Lomas is taken seriously as a "historian of Freemasonry" by anyone. If he is, academic reviews should be presented. Until then, his works on freemasonry should be considered speculative fiction fantasy literature. -- dab (𒁳) 07:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems unbalanced. There is info on his background - then all else refers to 'controversies'. Usually, controversy accompanies influence; where is the information on this? I added a couple of citation requests because as it stands, the text in the controversies section appears to present synth and original research.
Some demonstration of his influence is given here - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xmkJmYkwMWAC&lpg=PA97&dq=robert%20lomas&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false -- Zac Δ talk! 15:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that Lomas’s work is routinely criticized as Pseudohistory, it seems appropriate to include him in Category:Pseudohistorians. Please discuss. Blueboar ( talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTCV articles usually don't keep long publications list. It would be a good idea to select notable items only. — Paleo Neonate – 06:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
"According to his website, Lomas is a regular supporter of the Orkney International Science Festival, having lectured there, chaired sessions, and taken part in the school's support sessions over a period of eight years."
It seems incredibly odd to me that such a thing could not be either verified or disqualified. Either there's records proving this to be the case or there isn't and if there isn't then that fact needs to be added ("Despite no record of his attendance Lomas' website claims he is a regular supporter [etc]". I'm unfamiliar with the man or his work so I'll see what I can do to fact check as I have no bias here (I simply thought it was a strange sentence that begged the question of whether or not it was true) AeonFluxus ( talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There were a few problems with this article, as first written, that I have corrected. Most are simply styalistic changes to make it read better. The greatest change was in deleting the statement: "He has now established himself as one of the worlds leading authorities on the history of Freemasonry and science..." I would hardly say that Mr. Lomas has "established himself as a leading authority" on anything other than how to write a best selling book. As far as his "authority" on Freemasonry goes, most historians find his theories to be highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst. Blueboar 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I accept some moderations to a page I need not have gone to the trouble to add. Some changes are great. I do, however, wish to maintain the factual information about Lewis Masonic because it is a notable publisher as part of Freemasonic history. Thanks to Blueboar for returning it, however I have further returned the good old historical bit since there's no harm at all in presenting this useful historical information to the end-user. :-) I accept the initial response from Blueboar regarding the questionable statement I made surrounding Lomas' significance in Freemasonry and science. I actually agree at removing science - it was far too sweeping - but I would like to return the former claim on part of Freemasonry since statistically the best-selling author is. Blueboar removed a statement about the number of languages worldwide the Hiram Key has been translated in. I wholly accept this for the time being until I source where I came across this important data. Finally, I would like to offer Blueboar the chance to retract his most bizarre statement. It regards his libellous last point and substantial unfounded claim that "most historians find [Lomas'] theories to be highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst". Are you just proving that it isn't just myself who can romantically and quite accidentally make a tad sweeping statement? :-) Moreover, to be quite frank, you are merely subjectively dismissing a statement in a style that can only lead to the beginning of petty policing whereby we may both keep altering the information presented. And besides, I did say "one of the". Dr Lomas' books are very much best-selling. What is your point? Are you saying that this is of no concern when deciding upon the relevance of a person's research? Have you sold your findings around the world millions times over? Oh, and not forgetting the view that your findings might be 'highly speculative' and 'out right rubbish at worst'. Come on, I hardly think theories that are "highly speculative at best, and out right rubbish at worst" would be so well travelled and referenced. Xzrox Wednesday 11th January 2006 @ 3.46 GMT
I added a controversy section to point out to readers the criticisms of Lomas' work. This is my first major addition to the Wikipedia, so please do what's necessary if I have wrecked NPOV. I think what I wrote is fair and accurate. Intelligent Masons don't buy into the poor scholarship. In my opinion, the profit from book sales is Lomas' motivation.
I note that the controversy section has devolved into a "who likes Lomas and who doesn't" sniping contest. Much of what was added was POV... on both sides of the argument. First, many of the statements were not about Lomas or his work, but about the people commenting on it (such as the statements about the "United Grand Lodge of America being critical of AASR SJ.) (by the way... what is the UGLA? As far as I know there is no such beast?... at least not in regular recognized Masonry... but I digress). Anyway... I have pared the section back to plain verifyable statements of Fact... some people do not agree with Lomas (short list), others do agree (short list). If you need to expand on these facts, please keep focused on positive and negative comments about LOMAS and his work... not positive and negative comments about the commentators. Blueboar 14:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be atrend occurring whereby one or two editors of various articles relating to freemasonry are choosing to insert highly POV material into encyclopedic discussions. Whatever incidents may have caused the formation of the Unite Grand Lodge of America, wiki is not a soapbox for addressing these concerns. A number of UGLA persons have lamented in various foums how due process is not being followed in various US jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and then here on wiki we see what appears to be a UGLA supporter trying defy community guidelines regarding how the encyclopedia should be modified. For example, the need for NPOV, and the need to avoid personal attacks.-- Vidkun 20:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The United Grand Lodge of America is irregular and clandestine. It is not in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England or any other Regular Grand Lodge, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, some of the editors of this article think it's a personal attack to say that Lomas uses the creeping assertion fallacy (saying "It seems that Hiram was a pharoah" and then later claiming "We've proven that Hiram was a pharoah."). If Lomas had evidence, then his claims would be valid. I'll sit and wait for such evidence. . . Prewitt81
My brothers... irregular or regular as you choose... I would like to ask you all to back up a second and think. This article is a biographical sketch of Robert Lomas. It needs to focus ON Mr. Lomas, and not on what we may think about him or his work. Now, I think the "controversy" section is valid, but only because his work has engendered controversy. We need to keep this NPOV. It is fair to say that X group thinks Lomas's theory is flawed, while Y group diagrees and thinks his theory is valid. The statements need to be cited, but they are fair statements. It is not fair or NPOV to say B group thinks that C group is full of crap or visa versa. Please... let's keep this focused on Mr. Lomas and his theories and not on our personal agendas. This relates to both Lomas supporters and Lomas detractors. If you need to do so, please read WP:NPOV. Finally... Please remember that this is not a lodge meeting. Regularity does not matter here. NONE of us are Masons here... we are all nothing but fellow editors. As such we should be civil and work together to create a good article. I'll step off my soapbox now. Thank you. Blueboar 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems this entire page is slowly becoming a vanity page, as the additions of information by Martin Faulks and Peter Gower (wiki editors) seem to directly refer to an interview by Peter Gower of Martin Faulks. Isn't this what is considered original research?-- Vidkun 00:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added disambiguation to the intro, Lomas is a Business lecturer not a profesisonal historian, the intro as it stood lent more weight to his authority than was appropriate.
The article needs a more complete list of his work, at the moment it focusses only on Masonic titles, his marketing and IT work needs to be listed as well, unfortunately his own website doesn't list them.
I've removed the UGLA link as linkspam. It's not referred to in the article and it looks to be irregular, associating him with it does him a dis-service.
This needs a lot of structural work and some content work to reduce POV, at the moment it is a vanity page but it is notable enough to need to be here. ALR 13:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It poses little impact to the article itself, but the interview of Martin Faulks was conducted by "Peter Gower"??? Peter Gower is the name used in a number of Masonic exposes, and occasionally as the example name in some Masonic cypher books and monitorial works instead of "Mr. A. . . B. . .", and is said to be a corruption of Pythogoras. That interview is considered a serious piece of work?-- Vidkun 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking back on previous edits, the original seems fine. I don't actually see any problem. And I don't see why it has to be turned in to some kind of attack at this historian. - THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Lomas is not a historian, he writes fantasy novels which masquerade as historical research. Yes, it would seem Lomas dabbles in lots of fields, but so do lots of people; at professional levels. For the sake of example, would you say Bill Gates can only be one of a coder, a philanthropist, a businessman, a speaker? Come off it. The changes look bitter, especially when making claims such as 'amateur historian' - be careful when using such terminology - and Lomas would appear to be more of a professional in the field of freemasonry than business when you look at his bibliography and aclaim he has received in the fields he writes. Don't fall in to the trap of only citing/taking on board negative criticism of artists because it looks subjective. The revert is fine because it makes a simple point whilst not displaying any bitterness towards this person. I don't see any reason why it needs to be altered again. 18:43, 13 May 2006 (BST)
The folling lines were added to the end of the "controversy" section:
I have removed them not because I disagree in any way... but because I have no idea what they are trying to say... the sentence structure of the first sentence is so muddled that it makes no sense... does it mean Lomas proved his critics wrong? Did he prove them right? What does "proven from detailing" mean? And what is Lomas's technique on the Megalithic Yard? etc. Blueboar 12:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering if we really need such in depth descriptions of Lomas's books ... I think these would work better as seperate articles on each book. We could provide a shorter synopsis here if it is needed. Blueboar 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is much less POV now, so I have removed the tag. If you object, replace it, but please say why. Blueboar 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This section takes up a great deal of the article and is completely unreferenced. I don't think this much detail is necessary - pertinent points covered in secondary sources can be worked in to the prose of the article. Does anyone know offhand where these summaries might have come from or what references were used to write them? What do you think of drastically shortening that bit? Shell babelfish 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I provided a citation to back up the fact that Lomas's work has been classified as "Pseudo-history". It was removed as being "libelous and incorrect". That may be... but we are not the one's making that claim. We are simply repeating what others have said. And it isn't just one source... Here is another. As much as some may not like it, Lomas's work is considered to be pseudo-history. We should mention that fact. Blueboar 19:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well said Shell. "I was only following somebody else's orders" has never been a valid defense.If interviews from the British Broadcasting Corporation, which notes Lomas's work has produced a number of best sellers is not considered evidence to support the use of "best-selling" in the introduction the comments of a few fringe booksellers seem even less valid. I would suggest we keep to facts in the Introduction and Background and keep the comments for the work itself or the controversy section. Using Wikipedia pages to simply attack somebody you don't like or even bulling up somebody you do like brings the whole project into disrepute.
The evidence I have added to the article, showing that Lomas's views on the formation of the Royal Society and its links to Freemasonry are respected enough for him to be invited to give a Wednesday evening Public Lecture at Gresham College, which is the third oldest University in Britain after Oxford and Cambridge is a fact. The lecture was well-received (I was present and saw it) and has been incorporated into the distance learning program of Gresham lectures as per reference. Blueboar, if you are sincere in your search for reliable sources to prove or disprove Lomas's attitude to facts you will ake the trouble to view the lecture, you will notice that the Gresham Professor who introduces Lomas praises his all-round scholarship and achievements in IT and Fire Brigade Command and Control. At no time is any suggestion made that Lomas invents false facts (which is the implication of pseudo) to support his viewpoint. Lomas is controversial and people either seem love him or hate him, but it is his views which are questioned not his knowledge of facts. I submit that in the light of this evidence Blueboar you should ceases your campaign to label an honest, if free-thinking scholar, with a libelous label in the introduction to a page on him and keep comments on Lomas's conclusions to the controversy section where they belong. You will find plenty of people who hate him and call him names in the Masonic establishment and I agree it is fair to report them, but likewise if WIkipedia is ever to be taken serious is should maintain a clear line between facts and opinion. The opinion that Lomas is a fraud is not one shared by the UK academic establishment or he would not have been given the honor of being asked to deliver a Public Lecture at Gresham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.68.134 ( talk) 10:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Continuing on the discussion above, we now seem to be edit warring over whether to categorize Lomas as a "Historian of Freemasonry". Lomas's books are clearly pseudohistory. His works are conjectural and filled with suppositional leaps of logic (The Ancient Egyptians had certain beliefs... suppose that these beliefs influenced early Christianity... Now suppose that the early Christians had hidden texts that demonstrate this which they hid under the ruins of the Temple... The Knights Templars might have found them... since there is a legend that the Freemasons might be decendants of the Templars... therefore there is a direct connection between the Ancient Egyptians and Freemasonry). This is not History! This is pseudohistory. We can not call Lomas a "Historian of Freemasonry". Blueboar ( talk) 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not suppose Lomas is taken seriously as a "historian of Freemasonry" by anyone. If he is, academic reviews should be presented. Until then, his works on freemasonry should be considered speculative fiction fantasy literature. -- dab (𒁳) 07:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This article seems unbalanced. There is info on his background - then all else refers to 'controversies'. Usually, controversy accompanies influence; where is the information on this? I added a couple of citation requests because as it stands, the text in the controversies section appears to present synth and original research.
Some demonstration of his influence is given here - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xmkJmYkwMWAC&lpg=PA97&dq=robert%20lomas&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false -- Zac Δ talk! 15:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that Lomas’s work is routinely criticized as Pseudohistory, it seems appropriate to include him in Category:Pseudohistorians. Please discuss. Blueboar ( talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTCV articles usually don't keep long publications list. It would be a good idea to select notable items only. — Paleo Neonate – 06:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
"According to his website, Lomas is a regular supporter of the Orkney International Science Festival, having lectured there, chaired sessions, and taken part in the school's support sessions over a period of eight years."
It seems incredibly odd to me that such a thing could not be either verified or disqualified. Either there's records proving this to be the case or there isn't and if there isn't then that fact needs to be added ("Despite no record of his attendance Lomas' website claims he is a regular supporter [etc]". I'm unfamiliar with the man or his work so I'll see what I can do to fact check as I have no bias here (I simply thought it was a strange sentence that begged the question of whether or not it was true) AeonFluxus ( talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)