Talk:Bryant G. Wood/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Undocumented statement from Pico

From Chronic2 (talk)
PiCo, you have deleted a documented statement because it apparently is not conformable to your opinion, instead of correcting it with a documented statement. Are you aware that the radiocarbon debate does indeed affect dates in the Levant? If we are ignorant about the current state of scholarship, it is improper to delete something just because you don't agree with it. If you have some scholarly reference that contradicts what Komandorskiye said, then the proper thing to do is to put back in his statement and counter it with your documented statement. If you have no such documentation, you need to restore what you deleted. Chronic2 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My reason for saying the radiocarbon debate on Egyptian/Aegean dates does not involve Levantine dates is this: The effect noted is that gas emissions from volcanic vents can alter the isotopic balance thereeby altering their apparent chronoly. This effect, however, is (a) highly localised (extends no more than a few hundred meters), and (b) will naturally effect only those plants in an active growth phase at the time of the eruption. The effect is important for Aegean/Egyptian synchonism because Egyptian artefacts, dated by the old systems of Egyptologists, have been found in Aegean contexts (to be precise, on Thera) together with plant materials which have dated by radiocarbon to dates other than those established by Egyptologists. The debate on how to reconcile this continues. It does not, however, concern dates elsewhere: plant matter from the Levant was far too far away to be effected by volcanic activity in the Aegean, and in any case the specific samples which we're discussing from Jericho are from annuals - in other words, plants which grow and die within a single year - it's highly improbable that the year of their lives was also the year of the Thera eruption. If Bryant Wood is really making the argument you seem to be imputing to him, then he's misunderstanding the science involved - but perhaps his argument is actually something different. PiCo (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2009

(UTC)

From Chronic2. Thanks for this answer. Does not your answer fit into the category of OR? In other words, you have stated a proposition about why the radiocarbon date adjustments for Thera can not be extended to the Levant, without giving any citations. I have entered citations showing why these adjustments must be extended to the Levant, with citations from two of the foremost scholars who are involved in the matter. The proper thing for you to do is to enter your counter-argument with citations, not just delete as "tendentious" whatever you do not agree with in order to support your own POV.

Because you do not seem to have supplied a proper reason for your deletion of a properly cited statement, and because you started the whole radiocarbon discussion on this page anyway and now do not want anyone else to contribute to it, I am putting the more modern research back in. Please observe Wikipedia policies. Inform me where I am not doing so; just using a "tendentious" label is not sufficient. Chronic2 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Chronic2. No, my answer is not OR, if only because it appears on a talk page - the avoidance of OR only pertains to the texts of articles. But I believe you are not actually meaning OR, so much as asking mew to justify my statement that the radiocarbon date adjustments for Thera cannot be extended to the Levant. If you read closely what I said, this wasn't exactly my statement: what I said was that it's not physically possible for a volcanic eruption in the Aegean to have an effect on plant material in the Levant, because the volcanic gasses won't travel that far - they'll be so diluted by the far greater mass of the atmosphere that plants won't take them up in sufficient quantities to alter their isotope balance. I also noted that the cereal grains dated in the recent tests were from annuals (as cereals always are, of course) - this means that, unless these cereals were harvested in the exact year of the Thera eruption, they had no chance to be effected. It's true that I provided no references for these statements, but they're quite basic - I leave it to you to do the research. Incidentally, you mention or state that you have provided citations from two scholars supporting your own view, but in fact if you read them closely you'll find that they don't - they're talking about the Thera/Egypt chronology problem, not about the physics of volcanic eruptions. PiCo (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

From Chronic2. Thanks, PiCo, for your response. I'm sorry I did not make myself clear, and that's my fault. I fully realize that the Wikipedia policy is that OR cannot appear on article pages, but it is OK on talk pages. What I meant when I said that your discussion of Thera fumes and grains was OR, was that you should not put it into the article because it was OR, unless you could give some citations. But you have used this argument as a justification for deleting the more modern scholarship regarding the radiocarbon issue. The proper way to handle citations you do not agree with is not to delete them entirely, but to enter your properly cited scholarship that has a differing opinion. This you did not do. What I intended, but did no make clear, was to tell you that if you tried to bring counter-arguments to my documented statements, you needed to be aware that what you said on the talk page was OR, and as such was not suitable as an answer that would be put in the article itself. What was unjustified, in my opinion, was that you presented your reason for not agreeing with the radiocarbon results in the Talk page, and thought this justified your wholesale deletion of my entries, and you were not willing to present that as a counter-argument in the article. If your Thera-fumes argument, as you gave on the talk page, is relevant to the discussion (I do not think it is), then go ahead an enter it as a refutation, but do not have it as a secret reason for you wholesale deletion of properly documented scholarship. I see from your Talk page that others have brought this point to your attention before.

The discussion of Thera fumes does not belong on the Bryant Wood page. If you have something to say about that, put it into the Radiocarbon dating page or somewhere else. What does belong on this page is a discussion of the validity of Dr. Wood's scholarship. You recognized this when you introduced, several months ago, the argument that radiocarbon dating supports Kenyon's date for the destruction of City IV, not Wood's. It was entirely appropriate to make such an entry. It is also entirely appropriate to balance your 1995 citation that supported your statement with more recent scholarship that definitely supports Wood's date for the destruction. We agree then that the radiocarbon date for Jericho City IV is appropriate for the Wood article. What we have disagreed on is whether recent scholarship that supports Wood's position should be included in the article, telling why the radiocarbon controversy supports it. We also do not agree on your method of deletion of properly documented statements that do not agree with your opinions instead of presenting alternative scholarship, with the only justification being some remark in the comment line such as "tendentious." As I said, this has been brought to your attention several times in several different situations in the past, as shown on your Talk page. The most recent examples: on the Jericho page, your deletion of user Patsw's contribution, and in the present page, your deletion of the entry of Komandarski, which you eventually put back in after I objected to your methods. Both of these editors were making the point that recent radiocarbon scholarship now contradicts Kenyon's dates for Jericho City IV. Your handling of these other editors provoked me to try to help these other editors whom I thought had been mistreated.

The fact that two others have now stated that the current state of the radiocarbon controversy should no longer be suppressed, but should be allowed to speak to the Jericho issue, shows that this matter will not go away. It is my belief that the users of Wikipedia need to hear "the other side of the story" rather than just the one side that you are willing to have presented.

Since your comments above has not invalidated my reason for including the more modern findings, I have put back in my entries of a few days ago. Feel free to counter them, but with proper scholarship. I have restricted myself to what is germane to Bryant Wood's credibility; a fuller discussion of the radiocarbon issue belongs elsewhere. Chronic2 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your response has clarified matters. I've edited your versions as follows: I've left your (referenced) statement that Wood questions the radiocarbon dates and links them to the Thera question, but I've cut the (fairly long) explanation of that debate, since it's already available to interested readers in the Thera dating article, which is wikilinked - the role of wikilinks is to help us avoid the need to repeat material found elsewhere. I've also added a sentence stating that Kenyon's dates are those accepted by the majority of mainstream Syro-Palestinian archaeologists, as it's important to note the opinion of the profession as well as that of Bryant Wood.

Incidentally, I'd like to thank you for the courteous way you've conducted this debate - it's a model for how two editors, coming from very different perspectives, can cooperate in the wikipedia project. PiCo (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Self Pubished Citation

biblearcheology.org is indeed the site run by Wood's organization, and the link is to a comment by Wood. However, the citation meets Wikipedia's policy for citing self-published sources.

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...." In this case Wood casts himself as taking part in an ongoing scholarly debate about the date of the Thera eruption, a topic about which Wikipedia has a (linked) article. The point of the citation is not to characterize the state of the scholarly debate, which is done at the linked Wikpedia article, but simply to establish that Wood takes this position. To clarify this, I have moved the tag from "date of the Thera eruption" to "argues." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komandorskiye (talk • contribs) 03:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing that Bible and Spade be merged here, per WP:MERGE rationales #3 'Text' (B&S is very short, and lacks third-party sourcing) & #4 'Context' (as B&S clearly reflects Wood's inerrantist viewpoint). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This proposal has not received community support, and I am removing the stale merger tag. StAnselm (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"inerrantist" in lead

The word "inerrantist" in the lead should be removed. There are hundreds of scholars who belong to inerrantist institutions, and we don't describe their position in this way, so why is Wood different? User:Doug Weller says "the lead needs to make it clear he's a Creationist", but why do we need to do this? Is that how he's described in multiple reliable sources? The article has one citation to him being a "creationist archaeologist", but it isn't clear that this is important enough in his work to include in the lead. In any case, inerrancy and creationism are completely different things - lots of inerrantists are not creationists (at least, not strict, young earth creationists). So it seems this reference is trying to hint at something about Wood when there is no reliable source that says it explicitly. In other words, this is a BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The ABR states "We consider the patriarchal narratives of Genesis 12-50 to be historically accurate in their reporting of chronology, persons, places, events, and cultural customs and background. Further, we believe that the extensive chronological data found in both the Old and New Testaments is historically accurate."

Exactly what is the BLP violation? Doug Weller talk 11:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, there is no doubt the ABR is inerrantist; the question is the relevance to this person. AFAIK, nowhere else do we say things like "Jones teaches at the inerrantist Sunshine Theological Seminary"; there is no reason to do so here. StAnselm (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that for anyone who purports to be putting forward a scientific viewpoint, especially in biblical fields, that it's relevant and certainly not a BLP violation. It would be unusual for us to describe a theologian without discussing his/her theological views, we make it clear that John Hartnett (physicist) is a Creationist, as we do with scientist John C. Sanford. I realise that you don't like it although I'm not clear why. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's the indirectness that I don't like. If he holds to that position, and it's relevant to his work, by all means mention it. But once again, we don't generally describe institutions as "inerrantist" on BLP pages. (Are you able to provide an example?) You see, it's completely arbitrary: Why "inerrant"? Why not "trinitarian", for example? Certainly ABR has an unusual statement of faith in that they has specific beliefs about the Book of Genesis, but that has nothing to do with inerrancy. StAnselm (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Would it make you happier to call him a Creationist in the lead and add him to the Christian Creationists category? Doug Weller talk 12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that. Is Creation Ministries International a reliable source in this instance? StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say so. It's a split from Answers in Genesis, see it's own article and Legal controversy between Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International. It's a major organisation. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: anyway, I've revised the lead to include his editorship of Bible and Spade, including text from that article which I assume you're ok with as you've edited the article when the text was there. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with that. Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad we could find something we could both agree on. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

PROFRINGE controversy

@Mar Komus: Your edits are WP:PROFRINGE. Wikipedia community very much looks down upon WP:FRINGE/PS and pseudohistory. We have to call a spade a spade, according to WP:ARBPS, which I had previously advised you to read.

My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters...
— User:AndyTheGrump

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. About the lead section see WP:CITELEAD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:

My edits are not WP:PROFRINGE. The article, as you and others have deemed appropriate, stands biased against the man himself. The Wikipedia community very much looks down upon articles that unfairly represent people or facts (unless, of course, that person happens to be a Christian, so I guess you've got that one in your pocket). In this case, the phrase, "creation scientist," while factual, is presented in a juxtaposed arrangement as would lead many readers to forgo their conclusion, a priori, about any of Bryant Wood's work. We have to call a spade a spade and this is a clear case of what is called, according to Wikipedia, poisoning the well. Note that I did not--NOT, I say--remove the OTHER reference to the fact that he believes in the Intelligent Design hypothesis, which I judge to be fairly placed. But that the gatekeepers of this page are CLEARLY trying to throw as much shade on the Bible as possible is obviated by the fact that someone ALSO decided that it was worth mentioning that David Livingstone was also a creationist. BW's and DL's positions on the origins of life or the universe or both have zero to do with the merits of their archaeological research and calling these facts to light is a way of besmirching the men rather than allowing their arguments to speak for themselves. Your biases and agenda are 100% perfectly clear. Do whatever you want, but the Internet is forever and this will now stand as a fine witness against you. I won't edit those parts any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar Komus (talk • contribs)

We, the Wikipedia community, do believe in something. That is not being Christian or Antichristian, it is mainstream science and mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. By this gauge we judge everyone. And of course, we don't judge ourselves, but we let WP:MAINSTREAM WP:RS speak.

#Impact factors are assigned by the Journal Citation Reports. These are the only ones that we list. We do not include unreliable information in articles to "let the reader decide", that is not what a serious encyclopedia does. --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

BW's and DL's positions on the origins of life or the universe or both have zero to do with the merits of their archaeological research and calling these facts to light is a way of besmirching the men rather than allowing their arguments to speak for themselves. Motivated reasoning is motivated reasoning. When religious fanatics pretend to do mainstream research, it does sometimes get noticed. Care needs to be taken to contextualize the messenger as being a religious fanatic rather than a dispassionate researcher. jps (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Josh? Just don't. Neither of them are religious fanatics (ad hominem much? And one of them is dead anyways, so let's not try to psychoanalyze dead guys too much here. OK?). And just because you have three letters behind your name, you can't claim to be a dispassionate researcher yourself, now, can you? You're not "[contextualizing] the messenger." You're poisoning the well, because BW is a credentialed academic and is respected--even if his views on the Bible are at odds with "mainstream" science. He's not from the Wyatt group, so be fair and respectful with regards to his reputation (or would you like for me to "contextualize the messenger" when it comes to you? See, Josh, when people who have a long history of behaving like trolls pretend to be rational, it does sometimes get noticed). The claims of any research stand or fall by their own merits--not by the reputation of the person doing the research. Plus, his research has to still undergo scrutiny by peer reviewed journals if it's to be accepted as "mainstream"--just like anyone else's would. Of course, since many of the journals are already biased against anything that would support the biblical narrative (after all, motivated reasoning is motivated reasoning, right?), BW is probably not going to find much of an audience with "mainstream" archaeologists--not yet, anyway. At any rate, it's hardly material because what's true isn't always mainstream and what's mainstream isn't always true (Just ask Ignaz Semmelweis, who, by Wikipedia's standards--which go by "mainstream"--would have received the same "messenger contextualization" treatment then as BW "enjoys" today). Mar Komus (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Galileo Gambit=mark of the WP:FRINGE. According to WP:ARBPS we have to tell he is fringe in big shinny letters. That's part of policies and guidelines. About the gambit: the bulk of mainstream archaeologists don't give a rat's arse if a particular story from the Bible is true or false. They have not become archaeologists in order to disprove the Bible, nor to prove it true. That's only a byproduct of evidence. Speaking of Bible scholarship, I love this video A Closer Look: Modern Textual Criticism - The Faith Destroyer on YouTube because a fundamentalist Protestant apologist gets creamed for catering to Bart Ehrman. According to its author, there is almost no difference between the apologist and the atheist scholar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither of them are religious fanatics. Young-earth creationists are, by definition, religious fanatics. jps (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: The Galileo Gambit isn't what I was going for there, but you're welcome to burn straw men. I was only pointing out that what's true isn't always mainstream and what's mainstream isn't always true. And, for the record, I'm not saying that just because Ignaz was right or that Galileo was right that therefore BW will be accepted into "mainstream." My point is simply as I stated. Whether or not "mainstream" ever gets onboard with the truth is, frankly, none of my concern. Wikipedia, of course, is free to only favor mainstream, but I am also free to not associate everything that's mainstream with "the Truth." As for archaeologists and disinterest: it matters little because it's really in the hands of the "peer reviewed journals"--which depend on subscriptions to stay afloat. And if they ever published anything that reeked of saying something so earth-shattering as, "Joshua's Ai now confirmed to have been at Khirbet el-Maqatir," the fallout from that would be financially catastrophic for them. So maybe the archaeologists are disinterested--maybe, but the publishers of journals are biased. To be fair, maybe BW's body of research hasn't reached the standards placed on acceptable archaeological research yet. Maybe it's all still a work in progress. That's fine. But the bar of acceptance can't be an a priori assumption that their work can't be accepted because the Bible is wrong because archaeology disproves the Bible so their work can't be accepted because archaeology has proven the Bible wrong so their work can't be.... Do you see what I'm saying? That's circular logic. And I know it's not Wikipedia's place to judge such things. I'm getting the message: nothing will be accepted except what is mainstream. But if you think for one minute that mainstream = always true, you're sorely mistaken. As for the video: a little off topic, so I won't address it here, but thanks for the link. Mar Komus (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Josh: Young earth creationists are not, by definition, religious fanatics--unless you're the one holding the keys to defining things now. But you're not. Also, even if you were right, that wouldn't invalidate the ARCHAEOLOGICAL arguments because, as previously stated, arguments stand or fall BY THEIR OWN MERITS. Once again, Josh, would you like it if I "contextualized the messenger" in your case? Should your work be censured because of some of your own checkered history? And I'm not asking that rhetorically, btw, but I think you know that. Mar Komus (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The ARCHAEOLOGICAL arguments, such as they are, stand on no merits precisely because they come from the biblical literalist perspective that only yields answers which accord with young Earth creationism and the incorrect, pseudoarchaeological dates that Wood gleefully promotes with ignorance and religious fanaticism. If you think some argument about my "checkered" history is at all relevant, I would encourage you to figure out how to make the argument on this page, but keep in mind WP:NOTFORUM. Suffice to say, I am very proud of my history and leave it at that. If you would like a website that is more accommodating of your fundamentalist Christian worldview, you might try Conservapedia. jps (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Schroeder. You just tipped your hand. And, since Wikipedia only accepts mainstream consensus, there's no need to argue anything with you at all. You can think whatever you want, but if mainstream consensus ever accepts BW's identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir as Joshua's Ai and you don't champion including it in Wikipedia as strongly as you've been opposed to it now, you'll be eating crow. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mar Komus (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You're moving goalposts, but I'm glad you understand that you're losing this editorial battle. I often encourage WP:PROFRINGE accounts like yours to be the change you want in the world. Go forth and convince the mainstream that your idea is correct. We'll still be here when you triumphantly return! jps (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If students of the nature of science are in agreement on anything, it is that science is a communal activity. The individual scientist may indeed formulate a particular theory explaining some phenomenon. But that explanation does not really enter the domain of science until it has been scrutinized, criticized, and tested by his or her colleagues in the relevant discipline. And, when the colleagues in a particular scientific discipline are in well-nigh complete agreement on the validity of some given explanation, it comes close to a form of scientific lunacy to proclaim the learned majority opinion wrong and to advocate some explanation that they emphatically reject. This is not to say that the majority is always right. As "scientific" creationists and advocates of other pseudoscientific explanations never tire of pointing out, there have been a number of explanations that at one time have been rejected by the scientific community only to have later been demonstrated to be valid. Invariably ignored by those who make this argument is the fact that the number of such cases is miniscule compared to the number of cases in which the original negative judgment of the scientific community was subsequently and totally corroborated. Indeed, in the twisted logic of this sort of argument, it would seem that the truth value of any idea increases with the degrees to which it is rejected by the scientific community!

— Leon H. Albert, "Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience

Source: Albert, Leon H. (Summer 1986). ""Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience". Creation/Evolution Journal. 6 (2). National Center for Science Education. ISSN 0738-6001. Retrieved 21 November 2019. Leon Albert received his master's degree from the University of California at Los Angeles and is a professor of anthropology at East Los Angeles College. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It only takes one pin to pop that balloon. Mar Komus (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no denial that the academic consensus can change in time. However, this is a mainstream encyclopedia based upon mainstream WP:RS, not an encyclopedia of WP:THETRUTH.

@Proveallthings: I did overlook Stephen Miller's reasoning, and I did it intentionally. And it's because me and you are attempting to do two different things right now. You're attempting to use evidence to find what is true. I'm attempting to survey the literature to find out what most scholars say about this particular question. That's because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth, but a service for summarizing what the scholarly community says. If we were here to discover what is true together on the Wikipedia talk pages, then you would be doing what is right (marshalling the linguistic arguments), and I would be doing something wrong (just quoting a bunch of authorities and pointing out that "your side" here consists only of people with a particular theological set of commitments). So let me be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong about "father". You, and Kenneth Kitchen, might be right. I'm just saying that, in terms of the way Wikipedia weighs sources, Kenneth Kitchen's opinion is out on the fringes in the scholarly world. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah...like I said, I'm starting to get that: mainstream encyclopedia. Got it. Not concerned with what the truth is, just what is currently accepted by mainstream consensus (whatever THAT truly means). I'm just wondering, though: if BW's identification of Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir becomes mainstream, will all the tarring and feathering go away, or will this page continue the subtle smear campaign? Mar Komus (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia always rubber-stamps present-day WP:RS/AC. That is highly unlikely to change. In respect to the Absolute Truth, I think that's unreachable by humans. And the objective truth is simply work in progress. In fact, the objective truth has been defined by Kant. Kant desired the euthanasia of all revealed religions, see Fleischacker, Samuel (2005). Levy, Richard S. (ed.). Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution. ABC-CLIO. p. 396. ISBN 978-1-85109-439-4. So, in a way, the objective truth is the enemy of religions. See e.g. My Encounter with the Enlightenment. Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperOne. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. Retrieved 16 November 2020. One of the ironies of modern religion is that the absolute commitment to truth in some forms of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity and the concomitant view that truth is objective and can be verified by any impartial observer have led many faithful souls to follow the truth wherever it leads—and where it leads is often away from evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity. So if, in theory, you can verify the "objective" truth of religion, and then it turns out that the religion being examined is verifiably wrong, where does that leave you? If you are an evangelical Christian, it leaves you in the wilderness outside the evangelical camp, but with an unrepentant view of truth. Objective truth, to paraphrase a not so Christian song, has been the ruin of many a poor boy, and God, I know, I'm one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If they want to rubber stamp currently accepted mainstream consensus, then OK; I just like to know what I'm up against--what the boundaries are. As for philosophical discussions on absolute truth: to deny the existence of absolute truth is to introduce a logically self-defeating argument. To deny that anyone can even know absolute truth is also a self-defeating argument. As for truth being a work in progress: OK, fair enough. But at some point, mainstream consensus could lead us to a situation like 1984 where the mainstream consensus is 2 + 2 = 5. We could imagine a situation in which the editors of Wikipedia, bound by their own commitment to mainstream consensus (at any cost) contradicts the truth. We could imagine the Quadlings, who espouse the Truth that 2 + 2 = 4 vs the Pentes, who espouse that 2 + 2 = 5 because that's what the mainstream consensus is from the scientists. As for Kant: well...we kant always have what we want. And Kant didn't get what he wanted. As for Bart Ehrman, I've never found his arguments impressive or convincing because he doesn't explore other options in his conclusions. I've also seen ways in which he's blatantly misread the text of scripture, so I don't trust his scholarship and only interact with it when absolutely necessary. Mar Komus (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as we are concerned, that is a far-fetched SciFi scenario. I don't pretend to solve this problem, but since Nietzsche the word "truth" has become object of ridicule. So the position that there is no Absolute Truth is as philosophically tenable as the position that there is an Absolute Truth. Apologists indulge in rationalizations in respect to that matter, but "truth" has been philosophically an extremely difficult term in the history of Western philosophy and many contemporary professors of philosophy are inclined to think that it does not make any sense. I'm not taking sides in this matter, since for Wikipedia purposes such judgment is irrelevant. Just saying that naively pretending you want to spread truth through Wikipedia is likely to amuse or even irritate experienced Wikipedians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion on the possibility of Wikipedia turning into a 1984 scenario is noted. As for absolute truth: to say that there is no absolute truth is, itself, a statement of absolute truth. Therefore, absolute truth must logically exist--no matter how preposterous one opines truth to be. Also, to say that no one can know any absolute truth is also, itself, a statement of absolute truth. Therefore, it must be logically possible to know some absolute truth. As for "experienced Wikipedians," I really care very little if anyone is amused or irritated by me "naively pretending [I] want to spread truth through Wikipedia." I mean...that's your framework on what I'm doing--not mine, so...not really relevant. Mar Komus (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Those magic verbal tricks work on simpletons, not on philosophers. As I said, I don't take a side in such dispute since I know full well when it is wikipedically irrelevant (futile) to take sides in a dispute. Why? Because this website is driven by WP:RS, not by the personal opinions of its editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No verbal magic tricks here, pal; just simple, pure logic. So if you're guided by WP:RS, then if the day ever comes that Dr. Wood's identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir as the Ai of Joshua is accepted by mainstream archaeology, being supported by reliable sources, will you just as gladly and emphatically be inclusive of his research? Mar Komus (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

First, I do not make the call, the scientific community makes the call.

Second, Wikipedia is somehow like a Chinese room: we collate sources, we apply somewhat simple rules and the result is one of the most accessed websites of the internet. Volunteer work for Wikipedia is not supposed to be original, nor creative.

Third, if I have to say what I believe I am not opposed to the objective truth—as an ideal to pursue, not as something we already possess. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Off topic: could you guys use the "Show preview" button? The edit history is getting muddied up a bit with all the indecisiveness. Mar Komus (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wood is verifiably an an archaeologist working on the biblical era of Palestine. Wood is verifiably a Young Earth creationist who believes in that the Bible is inerrant. The relevance of these two aspects of his biography to each other is self-evident, but also reinforced by other verifiable facts in the article: that his most well-known works are (re)interpretations of archaeological evidence informed by the biblical account; that he's the editor of Bible and Spade; and that the most prominent YEC organisation describes him as a "creationist archaeologist". We present all these facts side-by-side, letting the reader reach their own conclusions. Most will probably take it as a reason to be sceptical of his archaeological work. But I suppose those sympathetic to his views will see it as a sign that he is doing archaeology the right way. This seems like a textbook application of WP:NPOV to me. At no point do we make an undue connection between these aspects of Wood's biography in Wikipedia's voice, or tell the reader what to think. – Joe (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Not concerned with what the truth is and even less concerned with what Wikipedia editors think the truth is. There is no need to go deeper into this matter than that, since anything claimed to be truth on Wikipedia pages is, first and foremost, a Wikipedian's opinion about what the truth is. If that Wikipedian can justify it by citing reliable sources, we are back to the original modus operandi: citing reliable sources. Can we stop this philosophical excursion please? The deliberations of philosophers about absolute truth, or the deliberations of Wikipedians on those deliberations, are pretty irrelevant to the question of what to write about Bryant G. Wood. Which is the purpose of this page. Just this: we describe the current scientific consensus and not any future scientific consensus because we do not know what that one will be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)