Talk:Gabriel's Revelation/Archive 1

Breaking news? Maybe not

Mainstream media are not an appropriate source for incidents and materials of this kind. It's a fairly safe bet that scholarly review will disclose that the material is not that surprising and may well be being misrepresented. Remember the Gospel of Judas hype? Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just so you know, our articles are about verifiability, not truth. It may well turn out that this is a hoax of some sort that the media was fooled by, or a real find that they simply overhyped. Neither matters. What matters is what is verifiable through third-party sources. S. Dean Jameson 03:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reliable sources. The mainstream media have demonstrated their unreliability on matters of this kind. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

    That's certainly your opinion. But it is not the official policy of this project, which recognizes respected media outlets as reliable sources. I'm removing the tag now, as your last post makes it clear this is more about disliking the media than it is about this article. Please don't tag articles for those types of reasons. S. Dean Jameson 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. Many people have tried to make a policy that certain types of sources are "reliable" even when they are proven inaccurate. One doesn't need to resort to WP:IAR to reject such nonsense. Let's look at the sources:

• The NYT article doesn't look to anyone who expresses any doubts that these finds may not be as revolutionary as claimed.
• The IHT article is simply a version of the NYT article (or vice versa).
• The Agence France-Presse article is so short as to provide almost nothing.
• The Time article is much better; at least someone there went to the slight trouble to find someone who doubted the way this thing was being read.

And the verifiable truth? Well, it will show up in scholarly journals, just as the truth about the Gospel of Judas showed up. I am not a biblical scholar per se, but I do keep up with the field to some degree. And the fact is that any attempt to read a document like this requires a great deal of review by many people. When something surprising shows up-- especially without prior publication in a scholarly journal, which is the case here-- it is alomst without exception exaggerated if not utterly misrepresented.

I do not accept the theory that newspaper sources are ipso facto reliable. WP:RS is derivative of WP:V, and when we can verify that these sources have a track record of unreliability on a subject, we must not accept them. That is the case here. Mangoe (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your view is your view, and you're welcome to it. But that doesn't trump consensus or policy, which both state that newspapers are reliable sources, your opinion notwithstanding. S. Dean Jameson 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth I agree with Jameson. MSM documented events are suitable wikipedia sources and that is the wikipedia policy. I agree with Mangoe that this tablet is likely to be at least partially debunked or challenged at some point. And when that happens, the wikipedia article will surely be primed with good secondary sources reflecting the scholarly work such that those searching for more information will have a good encyclopedic article. The thing for us to do here is to stay tuned for articles that will meet wikipedia's citation criteria that are skeptical in nature and capture them. Sandwich Eater (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see now on the article, this may be news but it isn't new. Doug Weller (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First person raised from dead?

What is this about? According to one source, a man called Lazarus of Bethany was the first person raised from the dead in the Christian age. Now some may feel that the wikipedia article for that person is based on unreliable sources. But the article is allowed and it not considered controversial. Victuallers (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality? Really?

How is this article "non-neutral"? Please defend your tagging it as such here, or I will have to remove it. S. Dean Jameson 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tags are not weapons

Please do not use tags as weapons to enforce your opinions on the reliability of the media. S. Dean Jameson 04:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but you do not appear to understand the problem. It is not an opinion about the media in general, but a deduction from my knowledge of the field and everyone's experience with similar incidents in the past. It is perhaps true that the NYT reporter is accurately relating what he was told, although I would question his industry in seeking out contrasting views from responsible spokesmen. As related, however, the sources he uses cannot be trusted. They indeed seem to be another attempt at getting some mileage out of a minor discovery by skipping past the scholarly publication step before making a general announcement. It's difficult to tell from these articles even whether the material is widely known about by other scholars, as it is possible this is nothing more than someone pushing an eccentric reading of an old text. Going around scholarly publication, or prereleasing material (which also seems to be happening here) is a red flag that there's something wrong with the conclusions being drawn.

I don't expect someone from the NYT necessarily to know the field that well-- though one could hope the reporter would have some knowledge. I do expect them to understand that scholars who bypass the normal processes of academic publishing and review are patently unreliable sources. The NYT cannot make such reports reliable thourgh its prestige, here in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Mangoe (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you're doing your own original research. I fully understand that you seem to know more than me about this topic. That's fine. It also doesn't matter. We report what can be confirmed, not what we think we know based on our own knowledge and expertise. S. Dean Jameson 04:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not research of any kind to interpret the article and see that it is not really properly sourced. It fits the third clause of WP:REDFLAG quite well: those whom the NYT cites are not following the accepted processes of scholarship, but yet are claiming revolutionary findings. Mangoe (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• "...any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." -from WP:OR. Sorry, but you're just wrong here. S. Dean Jameson 11:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside some issues I have with the way WP:OR is worded at the moment, you are essentially saying that drawing conclusions about the reliability of sources-- any conclusions, even applying the interpretation of WP:V that you prefer-- is OR. Yes, it's a ridiculous position, but it's the consequence of saying that evaluating sources is "analysis or synthesis". So we wait until the next issue of Biblical Archaeology Review comes out, and Hershel Shanks can be quoted pooh-poohing the whole thing, and then what?

Having had some time to look at the articles cited, I note that the NYT version of Bronner's story conveys a rather different picture than the IHT version. I don't think these differences can be readily reconciled, and definitely not in a way that would fit with your interpretation of OR. Also, I don't have the time. So the most I can do is tag the article with a warning to take it with a large grain of salt. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• And, as I said, tags aren't weapons for proving your point. S. Dean Jameson 13:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tags are warnings to the unwary of problems with the article, not weapons. The problem has been ameliorated by introduction of more reliable sources-- that is, journals and such within the field-- that counterbalance the biases of the NYT article, so the dispute has become rather moot, as I would have it become. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• My only point -- and it still stands -- is that you were placing POV tags on the article to express your displeasure with the fact that newspapers are considered reliable sources. That was not acceptable. S. Dean Jameson 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's how you interpreted it, then you were mistaken. I placed the tag on the article because, in the real world, the article was based a limited set of MSM sources which exhibited a bias towards a sensationalist interpretation of the the text. That is beside the point of whether the reporters accurately conveyed what they were told (which in point of fact I think they largely did, though credulously).

And while I'm at it, you're pushing a theory of what WP:RS claims that it doesn't in fact say. Besides the fact that it is a guideline and not policy, it also makes no mention of any opinion as to the biases of any particular source. It certainly doesn't say that we must treat the NYT as without bias. And then, going to WP:V, the pattern is repeated. Verifiability is about being able to check up on statements, not about whether their presentation is neutral. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it, let me point you to WP:NPOV#Neutrality and verifiability: "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited." Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He was not "expressing his displeasure" he was pointing out the fact that some of the sources are potentially unreliable. You, sir, cannot dictate his intent based on your own personal feelings. Mangoe's tag stands. NJMauthor (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Read his posts to this talkpage. He has a beef with the "MSM." He's made that clear. Tags aren't weapons to use to express beefs about the MSM. Period. S. Dean Jameson 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You think I posted in this page without reading his text? I just happen to disagree with your evaluation of his motivations. NJMauthor (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To quote directly: "The mainstream media have demonstrated their unreliability on matters of this kind. -Mangoe" His words speak for themselves. S. Dean Jameson 06:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

MSM Reliability

The Main Stream Media are certainly not particularly reliable, but apart from some articles in an archeology magazine, and an unrefereed internet monograph on the subject, the MSM articles are all we have about this sensational news story. Referencing them is the best we can do for now, so tagging the article does not seem particularly helpful to me. As more information becomes available, this article, or at least its references, should be updated. If it is not updated in a timely manner, then the tag would become appropriate. Rwflammang (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But we do have the archaeology articles (and one of the MSM articles is by Knohl). We shouldn't get excited about the hype though (didn't Paul says something about 3 days 'according to the scriptures' -- a resurrected messiah wasn't unique even then. --Doug Weller (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not the Messiah! ...

I removed the statement which assumes the man in question refers to the messiah. The ancient text mentions nothing of him saving people or dying for sins. It merely states he returns to life, not unlike many biblical figures - and also zombies. The journalists who wrote the articles referenced were careful to avoid that statement, and I think we should be to. --Carbonrodney (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In article history: "please don't remove sourced material. it doesn't have to say it word-for-word--in fact, it shouldn't unless it's put inside quotes" - S Dean Jameson

"This will suggest that the story of a savior's death and resurrection" - there is no mention in either text of the man in question being resurrected saving anyone. It merely says he died and returned to life.

"It therefore sheds a dramatic new light on Christianity's origins in Judaism" - No it doesn't, not unless the person it talks of is Jesus specifically.

Ultimately, I have no problem if you wish to rewrite this article so that it doesn't assume the connection to Christ, but since it is not fact and since I don't wish to write and mislead people on the subject, I just removed those sentences. --Carbonrodney (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources suggest that, which is all that matters. I do not hold an opinion on whether or not the tablets themselves confirm, deny, or otherwise Jesus Christ. S. Dean Jameson 13:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah mate, that's the thing. They don't suggest it, they worded their articles quite carefully as not to indicate support to that assumption (though they do mention it as a possibility). As I said, if you want to word it carefully here be my guest. But as it was, it was unacceptable. Let's not even go into whether Jesus existed, was holy, anything. But the tablet only speaks of someone who died and was resurrected. Some people believe the person it speaks about is Jesus. When it could have been anyone who was resurrected. --Carbonrodney (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear that you're editing from a very distinct point-of-view. Please attempt to not allow this to influence your editing choices in regards to this article. Removing valid DYK notices is not appropriate in any way. S. Dean Jameson 14:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have sent you a private message regarding this. The re-phrasing is better now, I moved the Jesus sentence to Reception, from Origin. --Carbonrodney (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bah. "Weasely language" is exactly what I was talking about... The cited articles used it, because they are using opinions, not facts, to support their arguments. I have been suggesting we use it to, in order to not lie. But forget it, I'm staying out of this article... --Carbonrodney (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I heard

That the ink hasn't even been dated yet. Anybody know if this is true or false? And my opinion is that it's going to simmer out as unimportant, due to it's very vague, and as well as can be interpreted multiple ways for both sides. Glorthac (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Carbon dating

Has this been carbon dated yet? It's kind of important to anyone's theory about it. It's written in ink too so it's not like you can't do it, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.66.130 (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)