Talk:Book of Joshua/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

We have a separate article on Joshua most of which is from the 1906 public domain Jewish Encyclopedia. I don't see much point in having a separate article on Joshua, as that article mostly recounts the events of the book anyway. The 1906 article can be added to Wikisource and linked from here. So I suggest a merger of any unique material of the Joshua article into this, and a redirect. Thoughts? Derex 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is known when the Exodus occurred!

Archeologists do NOT know when the Exodus occurred. What is known is that the Israelites settled across the hill country of central Israel around the 12th century. And, Israel is mentioned by name in the 13th century. Moreover the Christian biblical chronology puts the Exodus in the 15th century whereas the Jewish biblical chronology put it in the 13th century. Archeological evidence makes both of these traditional dates difficult. By itself this sentence is wrong: "Excavations of several Canaanite cities have provided contradictory evidence for establishing the historicity of the Book of Joshua." Rather, it's the way religious traditions have timed and reconstructed the events which are untenable. The biblical text itself is complex, for example Joshua with a quick conquest versus Judges with a slow one. Many archeologists believe the biblical Exodus may echo the expulsion of the Hyksos, and if so it refers to an event in the 16th century which would agree with archeological record, even if the recording of it was largely legendary (similar to the legends of about Bronze Age Troy). --Haldrik 02:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. One of the largest arguments among archaeologists researching biblical times and places is when the exodus occurred. There are at least four theories I know of that deal with this issue. One states the exodus never happened and Israelites are just Canaanites (though I am incredibly dubious of this one and have seen little evidence to support it). One theory says the exodus happened in the late bronze age ~1550 B.C. One theory says it happened in the early iron age ~1250 B.C. and a final one says that it happened in the early bronze age just after the fall of the Egyptian Old Kingdom ~2200-2450 B.C.

Wikipedia is about what can be sourced, not about what traditions you yourself may have determined to be 'untenable'. If you would only include your source for these ideas, it's all a very simple matter - especially if you are contradicting what previous editors have written. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Emmanuel Anati - undue weight

I deleted this section (a single paragraph) about Emmanuel Anati:

A theory suggested by Emmanuel Anati states that the settlement of Canaan by the Israelites actually occurred prior to the Late Bronze Age as commonly held. Anati says he has found evidence to support Joshua’s conquest occurring in the Early Bronze Age circa 2200–2500 BC. Anati says that both a settlement bearing topographical similarity to the Biblical cities of Ai and Jericho were destroyed in this time frame, in a period when both sites had defensive walls. He also found that Ai was burned to the ground at this time, which fits the events in the Book of Joshua, and that the previous inhabitants of the areas around these cities gave way to a more nomadic people with different types of pottery than the original inhabitants and which developed into a pastoral society dominated by small villages. All of this would more accurately reflect what was recorded in the Biblical accounts of Joshua’s invasion, but it also conflicts with some of the Bible’s Old Testament chronology.

I had a look on Google and it seems Anati is primarily involved in prehistory - he's "Founder and Executive Director of the Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici in Capo di Ponte, Italy". He does have a background in the history of ancient Palestine, in that he has degrees in archaeology and historical geography, and he's done some work identifying "the real Mt Sinai" (one of many such). So he's not entirely non-notable (I gave the wrong impression in my edit summary). I do wonder, however, whether his theory of a Conquest in the Early Bronze is notable. This means, how much support does he have among his peers? Not much I think - the 2500-2200 period is far earlier than what I'm used to seeing. So I think it should be excluded from the article as representing undue weight to a fringe theory. PiCo (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

An old conversation

KW: I corrected, what I think is a spelling mistake in the Historicity section: hostoical -> historical. I might be wrong but I don't think hostoical is a word and if it is, not many would understand it so if I'm wrong, please correct it with something simpler.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhittingham (talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I added details with regard to the attacks upon Ai and the Israelite losses, the cause for the defeat (from the Book of Joshua's standpoint) and the process (urim and thummim, presumably) used to discover Achan and his wrongdoing. In defense of this, I think it clarified the passage and leads the reader to further learning (examining the ancient urim and thummim process by reading the further article.)

Additionally, I added reference to the viewpoint of God as supposedly unjust in ordering the extermination of the Canaanites. TTWSYF

Much as you tried to be objective in adding this information, it still comes over as POV. Consider the following statement:

Another difficulty arises out of the command given by God to completely exterminate the Canaanites. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" On the other hand, archaeology has discovered that the Canaanites were an extremely depraved society and frequently practised child sacrifice (burning the infant victims alive); from this point of view, the command to exterminate the Canaanites is viewed by some as just.

1. You use "depraved" without any reference to what you consider depraved behavior to be. Are they simply depraved because they are of the wrong religion, eat the wrong kinds of food, or allow their women to walk around half-dressed? If they are depraved because they practiced child sacrifice, then take that clause out of your sentence & let the fact of child sacrifice speak for itself.

2. Actually, it is more accurate to say they allegedly practiced child sacrifice. You claim that "archaeology" has found evidence of this; where was the evidence for this found? Finds of child sacrifice would be sensational, & obviously be reprinted in newspapers & news magazines around the world. I have more than a passing interest in archeology, & I would have remembered reading any report of child sacrifice, especially in what was Canaan, where this practice was alleged. (But if you provide the proof & sources for this allegation, I'll happily concede this point.)

3. You do admit that this practice would justify the extermination of this people; & I doubt many would defend a culture that practices human -- let alone child -- sacrifice. Would you also admit to the possibility that these charges were invented either at the time or later to justify this act of extermination? George W. Bush is hardly the first person in history to fudge the facts to justify a war he wanted to wage.

I hope you see that to make a truly NPOV statement about child sacrifice in ancient Canaan requires more work than you have done. What you have written may have a factual basis; but as it currently reads, what you have added is nothing more than tinder for Yet Another Edit War on Wikipedia. -- llywrch 02:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you feel that the article was, previous to my modifications, truly NPOV? It was criticizing the Bible, putting forth the typical mamby pamby attitude "oh those poor Canaanites and that wicked, wicked God for ordering the Israelites to kill them..." etc. There are firm archaeological findings supporting the Canaanite's practices of child sacrifice, sex worship, the practice of compulsory male and female temple prostitution, and further behaviors I would term depraved. I will place those references here. The latest iteration is not bad, but I question the need for the entire section. TTWSYF

Ok, here is the reference:

The Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, notes that at Megiddo, archaeologists found the ruins of a temple of Ashtoreth, goddess-wife of Baal. He writes: “Just a few steps from this temple was a cemetery, where many jars were found, containing remains of infants who had been sacrificed in this temple . . . Prophets of Baal and Ashtoreth were official murderers of little children.” “Another horrible practice was [what] they called ‘foundation sacrifices.’ When a house was to be built, a child would be sacrificed, and its body built into the wall.” Halley comments: “The worship of Baal, Ashtoreth, and other Canaanite gods consisted in the most extravagant orgies; their temples were centers of vice. . . . Canaanites worshiped, by immoral indulgence, . . . and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than He did.”

That's one reference; Halley is viewed as an authority in many circles. I have to dust off some other old tomes to pull up further research. Thanks, TTWSYF

Back with some more references.

"Excavations in Palestine have brought to light a multitude of A[starte] figures in all forms; . . . most of them are small, crude figures, an indication that this deity was chiefly used in home worship, perhaps worn by women on their person or placed in an alcove in the house. . . . The sensual nature religions of A[starte] and Baal appealed to the common folk. Of course, serious injury was inevitable; sexual perversions in honor of the deity, voluptuous lust, and impassioned exuberance became a part of worship and later moved into the home."—Calwer Bibellexikon (Calwer Bible Lexicon).

"Religious festivities became a degraded celebration of the animal side of human nature. Even Greek and Roman writers were shocked by the things the Canaanites did in the name of religion."—The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible.

"Of Canaanite religious practices, mention will only be made here of the sacrificing of children, for excavations have directly verified this. In Gezer as well as in Megiddo, the way corpses of children are immured . . . speaks conclusively . . . for this practice."—Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Science of the Old Testament).

"In no country has so relatively great a number of figurines of the naked goddess of fertility, some distinctly obscene, been found. Nowhere does the cult of serpents appear so strongly. . . . Sacred courtesans and eunuch priests were excessively common. Human sacrifice was well known . . . The aversion felt by followers of YHWH-God when confronted by Canaanite idolatry, is accordingly, very easy to understand."—Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands.

Hope these will be sufficient; thanks, TTWSYF

Lack of neutrality of "Historicity" section

Yesterday I attempted an edit to the opening statement of the "Historicity" section, which states, "Archaeological evidence has largely disproved the historical nature of the Israelite conquest of Canaan." The problem as I see it is the phrase "largely disproved," which shows a clear bias on the part of the author. My edit was undone, the reason being given was that "largely disproved" was correct since there was a referenced source to back it up.

In fact, it is with the source - not my fellow Wikipedia editor - that I have a problem. The author of the referenced source, William Dever, is certainly a respected scholar of ancient Near East history, but hardly unbiased. He has said, "My view all along... is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic..." It is not surprising that a man whose starting point is a rejection of the Bible as an accurate source would reach conclusions that support his pre-conceived notions; and while many scholars agree with him, a good many do not. (The problem is, of course, that all scholars bring some bias to their work, but Dever doesn't go out of his way to temper his.)

I propose two changes to improve the neutrality of this section of the article: 1st) Insert verbiage in front of the aforementioned statement that reduces it from a hard statement of fact to one that shows that it is a consensus opinion. I propose something like, "The majority of scholars of Near East history believe that archaeological evidence has largely disproved..." 2nd) Add a second paragraph that mentions the viewpoint of scholars who believe that a people group "Israel" did migrate into Canaan from an external location, giving brief mention of the evidence these scholars cite.

Rather that entering into an edit war at this point, I will wait a few days to allow other members of the Wikipedia community to comment before deciding upon what and whether to add/change. DoctorEric (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have completely redone this section. This was one of the most one-sided sections I have seen on Wikipedia. THAT is impressive. It was not just badly one-sided, but full of weasel words and thinly-veiled suggestions. I have used scholarly sources and separated this by saying it is a debate that can never be truly resolved. I have created sections listing the views of liberal scholars and those of conservative scholars. I believe I have represented both sides about as well as I can. Hopefully this won't be undone by people with obvious theological tendencies...RomanHistorian (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberal and conservative are words that describe theological postions, not historical ones. I hope there are more than these two sides to the debate, otherwise it is going to be a very biased one. Historicity of the events in question is a matter of history, not theology. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There are no "liberal" scholars. There are, however, conservative ones - the ones cited by RomanHistorian. These scholars are very much a minority, and a tiny one at that. They're motivated by religious preconceptions - the bible must be true because it's the word of God - and are impervious to arguments that go against their prejudices. They are not, by and large, published in mainstream journals. They complain of being ignored by the mainstream - see, for example, this quote from Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman whom RomanHistorian is so fond of: "nonconservative scholars quietly ignore those who still defend a traditional viewpoint." The complaint is evidence in itself that their views are not accepted. Nor should they be given space in Wikipedia - Conservapedia, maybe. PiCo (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree, but I would put it slightly differently. There probably really are liberal scholars, but the opposition between conservative and liberal scholars is a false one. I would contrast scientific, historical research with religiously inspired (biased if you prefer) and therefore less historical research. Liberal and conservative would represent subdivisions of the latter category. It would be a mistake to present the debate as between liberal and conservative scholars.

Your point about undue weight is a good one, but I disagree such views should not be part of Wikipedia. The subject of this article is the Book of Joshua, which is a religious text and therefore religious opinions are on topic for this article and they should be described from a neutral point of view. Whether or not the biblical account is historically accurate is very important to some believers and it is a good thing for Wikipedia to state that fact. Knowing which denominations believe the biblical account is historically accurate and which ones believe that is an important matter sheds light on those denominations. At the same time, agnostic, dispassionate and scientific historical inquiry also provides an important point of view. It is perfectly proper to note that there is a small group of scholars who present themselves as doing historical research who hold that the biblical accounts are in fact historical, as long as we point out they are a small majority that is largely ignored by mainstream historical scholarship. This speaks to the debate between religious and scientific opinion, which is on topic. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, this means I'm backing off a bit from my earlier statement that historicity is a matter of history, not theology. Both points of view are notable, even if you consider one of the two as invalid. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the inclusion of theologically-driven views, just so long as they are clearly identified and are notable by virtue of not being entirely fringe. My concern is that, while there may well be scholars who lean towards liberal or conservative views, there are also those who, quite simply, are not scholars at all. These are people who do not see religion and science as complimentary, and therefore favor the former over the latter, which is why they are (as Pico explained) quietly ignored. Let us continue to ignore them, whether quietly or not. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I share your concern and agree viewpoints should be clearly differentiated and covert apologetics should not be presented as historical research. Scholarship is a very broad term however, I would count fundamentalist Muslim Ulema under that term as well. Perhaps you had a more restrictive interpretation in mind, like scientist, though not restricted to the natural sciences. For me, as an agnostic, such religious points of view are mainly interesting because they shed light on various religions, not because they shed light on what really happened. Since we are dealing with a religious text, that seems on topic. Similarly I could be interested in how the teachings of Zen Buddhism differ from other forms of Buddhism, without necessarily being interested in which version if any is the most "correct", or in how Japanese imperialist politicians viewed their nation's history and to what degree this differs from modern views. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that this entire discussion has helped me understand myself a bit better, so as to calibrate for my biases. I'm Catholic, which means that I don't accept the Protestant notion of sola scriptura; I accept the Bible, but also tradition and the church. I find sola scriptura inexplicable because it is the church, informed by tradition, that has canonized the Bible, so if those sources of authority are unreliable, then so is the book. I also see no conflict between rigorous, scholarly research and faith, so I am in no way afraid that history and science could ever undermine the truths I live by. In short, I see this as a conflict between true Christianity and mere Bible worship. A Bible worshiper feels threatened by archeological evidence for the relative youth or authorial complexity of these books, while I have faith that we would not have canonized them if they were not truth.

In short, I agree with the statement that there is "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

Again, I explain all this so that you know where I'm coming from. I'm not proselytizing and I do remember that this is not a debate forum. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversions in historicity of conquest section

I've had to revert some extensive edits to the historicity section. I'll paste the reverted text here and explain what's wrong with it (the reverted text indented, explanations for reversion in italics):

The book of Joshua is largely an account of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites dated by James Ussher to the mid-fifteenth century BC.[2] However, "the collapse of Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture [c. 1200 BC] was a gradual process" as the Iron Age began.[3]

Archbishop Ussher? Since when was he an authority on dates? And the statement that the collapse of the LBA canaanite city-culture was gradual "as the Iron Age began" reads oddly - what does it mean? The phrase is perfectly comprehensible if it ends without that addition.

Israel was not mentioned extra-Biblically until the Merneptah Stele, erected in 1209 BC,[4] identifying a people in the central highlands of the region.[5] Although only villagers have left sufficient remains, over 300 central settlements and more fringe settlements (representing 40,000 villagers) date to Iron Age I.[6] Israelite sites are identified by being notably absent of pig bones, sometimes interpreted as indicating distinct ethnic identity, and via differing ceramics and more agrarian settlement plans.[7] Ann Killebrew sees recent research indicating unequivocally to Biblical Israel's roots lying in Late Bronze Age Canaan.[8]

Israel was not mentioned extra-biblically until the Merneptah stele? It wasn't mentioned at all! Only villagers have left sufficient remains? Villagers are the only ones who have left any remains at all! 2.3 million invading Israelites would leave something, but there's nothing. The statement that the absence of pig bones is used to identify sites as Israelite is simply wrong - what archaeologists actually do is call all villages in the highlands at this time Israelite, simply because they're in the highlands. Differing ceramics? There are no differing ceramics. More agrarian settlement plans? What exactly is a "more agrarian settlement plan"? I know, this is a reference to the fact that early village sites are built to a semi-=circular plan, which archaeologists identify with herders who started to settle down, but it's very badly expressed. "Recent research indicating unequivocally to..." That's dreadful English. Also, although Killibrew is our source, she's basing this on normative archaeological research and thinking, a point which is perhaps obscured if we suggest that it's hers alone.

The Book of Joshua explicitly says that Canaan was not completely conquered during Joshua's time.[9] The question of the degrees of conquest and/or assimilation may not be answered with certainty, as both sides cite a large body of archaeological and other evidence.[10]

Not quite true. The book of Joshua contradicts itself, first describing the conquest of the land, and finally saying that the land remains unconquered. This is usually taken as evidence of the various editing processes that the book went through. Incidentally, it's usually seen as a product of the court of Josiah - that needs to be mentioned. PiCo (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

These are reasonable and informed arguments. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, these are edits that you largely accepted without further adjustment at Joshua, but I'll grant that each article should be decided on its merits. 1. Ussher is preferred to no source; the fact that the Bible's chronology, as agreed generally by all literal interpreters since at least Josephus, puts Joshua about 250 years before the Iron Age means that all this Bronze-Iron transition talk is largely off-point and a potential WP:COATRACK. But I'll endure the coatracking so long as the internal textual dating of Joshua/Judges is mentioned. "As the Iron Age began" was merely for transition to the next paragraph in case people don't know that chronology; it can be cut. 2. Actually, <deleting digression about mention of Israel>. But the point is that a significant POV believes the Biblical records are older and the source uses a helpful word ("nonbiblical") to finesse that whole debate, while the phrase "not at all" needlessly excludes a POV without reliance on sources. 3. The word "sufficient" and most of that sentence is almost exactly what McNutt says p. 69, emphasizing the fact that nomads and shepherds do not leave "sufficient" remains but must still be accounted for. But again, the words "not at all" are not sourced. 4. I see that Killebrew p. 176 did not use the word "Israelite" in that context, so we can change it to "highland", with the POV that this indicates ethnicity obviously implying Israelite. The ceramics and agrarian plans are a gloss of Killebrew p. 13 and are expanded later in the text; if you want to change her phrasing for another of her phrasings, that's fine. 5. Thought I changed "indicating" to "pointing", but sometimes in complex edits I don't get to read every final sentence, sorry. But this is her POV about recent research, whereas a "normative POV" would be illustrated by a majority of "recent research" sources instead, and that naturally would omit historical or theological source POVs, which then need accounting in such an article as this to avoid a recentism tag. Under WP:BRD I will proceed with the next "bold" and enter the text with my concessions; but on each of these five points where you are not relying on sources, additional citations would be welcome. I will also add the book origins graf that you have let stand for several days to address the textual issues; the fact that Joshua's authorship was not seriously questioned by the scholars of the day for some two millennia is significant and yet you had me shorten the one sentence about it. But, in short, the idea that the former version was more accurate when it can't even spell Killebrew's name or quote its sources accurately would not stand without the citation requests being handled. JJB 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reversions in historicity of conquest section - -part II

I've reverted your new version as well. I know it must be frustrating, and I do thank you for engaging in a serious effort to take my earlier objections into account, but I'll set out my problems with the 2nd version:

Joshua's narrative is ascribed to Joshua himself by Bava Batra 15a (Talmud) and early church fathers.

I feel especially guilty about this one, because you were obviously taking up my earlier point about the need to talk about the origin of the text of Joshua. I still hold that this is indeed essential - we can't talk about the historicity of the conquest without talking about the reliability of the sole text for it - but I've just realised that the textual question has a whole section to itself up near the top of the article. That's my fault for not noticing the first time, and I apologise for that. Feel free to put a sentence about the traditional origins of Joshua in there (maybe add a note, very bried, explaining what the Talmud is and also the Bava Batra).  Done

In 1943 Martin Noth published an argument that behind Joshua and other books was a unified "Deuteronomistic history", composed in the early part of the Babylonian captivity (not long after 606 BCE)

Again, this belongs in the other section. This is perhaps going into too much detail - enough to state that today scholars accept the DtrH as a reasonable theory on the origins of that group of books, although there are many differences of opinion over detail (but we shouldn't go into those differences - they belong in the DtrH article).  Done

Noth's speculative practice of conjecturing the nonextant tradition has the weakness that "no two scholars ever propose the same tradition history for the stories of the Pentateuch".[2]

You're confusing the Deuteronomistic history (DtrH) and the documentary hypothesis (DH). The DH "conjours a nonextant tradition" (i.e., four narratives that have never been seen by modern man), but the DtrH does not - the DtrH takes the existing text of Deuteronomy to Kings as it is, and suggests that those books were composed as a single history - like the different volumes in an encyclopedia, to make an analogy. — PiCo — continues after insertion below

That's not what Deuteronomistic history says. It says he presented the persona of D as the source of the unity of Deut – 2 Kin. It seems Noth split hairs between "Deuteronomic" and "Deuteronomistic", which obscures whether the text D is the same as the text DtrH (or Dtr1). But you seem to be saying that DtrH has no reliance on D at all. Whatever "historical work" "just behind the books" Noth believed in, it is nonextant, and how could it avoid including D? But what would you want the article to say about the hypothetical text behind the Book of Joshua? JJB 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the article on Deuteronomistic history in the Oxford bible commentary (p.199 and following) - more authoritative than Wikipedia. Don't get too hung up about Noth - he started the iea, but it's gone a long way since then. PiCo (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Most scholars who follow the documentary hypothesis today believe in some such composite, containing the epic history of the premonarchical period...

As I said, this is confusing the DH with the DtrH - it shouldn't be in there.  Done

...which William Dever calls "largely 'propaganda,' designed to give theological legitimacy to a party of nationalist ultra-orthodox reformers."[3]

Dever is hardly the only one to hold this opinion, it's pretty standard. It doesn't need to be mentioned at all. Anyway, Dever is an archaeologist, not a biblical scholar - he's hardly an authority to quote on textual issues.  Done

Gerhard von Rad, another developer of the hypothesis, adds that "comparison of the ancient Near Eastern treaties, especially ... in the 14th and 13th centuries BC, with passages in the OT has revealed so many things in common between the two, particularly in the matter of form, that there must be some connection between these suzerainty treaties and the [OT]."[4] Kenneth Kitchen states that nearly all treaties in this period follow the pattern of Deuteronomy closely, while first-millennium treaties contrarily but consistently place "witnesses" earlier and omit prologue and blessing sections, requiring classification of the Sinai covenant and its renewals in Joshua with the fourteenth or thirteenth century rather than the sixth.[5]

Again, this relates to the question of the literary source (the book of Joshua), not to the archaeological evidence, which is what this section is about. And it's not terribly relevant - I've never seen anyone suggesting that the book of Joshua is in the form of a treaty. — PiCo — continues after insertion below

Nobody says Josh rather than Deut is the treaty form. But Kitchen's point is that significant evidence indicates the covenant renewed by Joshua was linked only to Bronze Age suzerainty treaties and no others. E.g. Josh 8:30-5 describes the same event as Deut 27:11-28:68, which is a suzerainty blessing-and-cursing form: not a first-millennium form, which would omit the blessings. These are archaeological tablets (the subhead is "historicity", after all) and they are properly placed in tension with the ceramic evidence, which is where I've moved them. JJB 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to criticise your hero, but Kitchen isn't very mainstream. Most scholars would say that the treaties in question (i.e., the ones in Deuteronomy) follow 7th century Assyrian patterns. Sorry, no source to refer you to for that, I'm too tired, but maybe the Mercer Bible Dictionary has something. Or the Oxford commentary, or Eerdmans. (Kitchen's great achievement was to sort out Egyptian chronology - he was once THE authority. Quite justifiably he was very proud of it. Then people started questioning his chronology. His reaction was to retreat further and further into defensive positions, refusing to even address the arguments of anyone who disagreed with him.) PiCo (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The book of Joshua is largely an account of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites dated by James Ussher to the mid-fifteenth century BC.[6] However, "the collapse of Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture [c. 1200 BC] was a gradual process."[7]

As I said above, Ussher is not an authority on dates, and the fact that the collapse of LBA Canaan was gradual is an argument against the historicity of Joshua, not for it. (Joshua would have had to have lived for well over the 110 years the bible grants him to have conquered the cities it credits him with). — PiCo — continues after insertion below

I don't understand you to be saying anything is wrong with the sourced text. Maybe you could source your concerns? JJB 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying Ussher's dates aren't accepted by mainstream scholars these days, and Ussher isn't regarded as an authority. Barr has some interesting things to say - see if you get a result by googling James+Barr+Ussher+Creation. The usually accepted date for any possible Israelite invasion of Canaan today is slightly before 1200 - has to be before, because the Merneptah Stele has them there at that dayte, but can't be too far before.PiCo (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel was not mentioned extra-Biblically until the Merneptah Stele,...

Your point (implied) is that the bible text is contemporaneous with the events described, which would put the mentions of Israel in Genesis well before 1200 BCE. This is not the general view among scholars. They see Genesis being composed around 950 BCE at the very earliest (the classic documentary hypothesis as developed by Wellhausen, although it has fewer and fewer followers these days), and more probably around 550 BCE (the common consensus today, although not universal), with further revisions down to the 2nd century (the biblical chronology that Ussher relied on can't have been finished before 164 BCE, because it has that year as its end date, 4,000 years after Creation).

The source uses the word "nonbiblical", so I'll put that in. I don't understand you to be saying anything about how to fix the inferences you draw from that concept. Maybe you could source your concerns? JJB 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with Biblical dates - when were the texts written? Once it was thought they were by Moses, so about 1440 BCE, but now nobody thinks Moses wrote anything. The usual dates for the Pentateuch now are around 550 BCE, with Deuteronomy somewhat earlier, maybe as early as Hezekiah, maybe only from Josiah. In either case, not before Merneptah. PiCo (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Although only villagers have left sufficient remains, over 300 central settlements and more fringe settlements (representing 40,000 villagers) date to Iron Age I.[10]

Yes, but the prose is clumsy.  Done

By the way, the word "central" shouldn't be there - the earliest settlement patterns lack primacy (i.e., no big villages central to clusters of smaller ones - that came later). PiCo (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Highland sites are identified by being notably absent of pig bones, sometimes interpreted as indicating distinct ethnic identity (i.e., Israelites), and via differing ceramics and more agrarian settlement plans.[11]

No, highland sites are identified by being in the highlands. I think what you mean to say is that highland sites are distinguished (i.e., from non-highland sites) by the absence of pig bones. It's not generally held that this absence means a different ethnicity - more general is the view that it results from different ecologies, pigs being unsuited to the highlands. The different settlement plans is correct, but the different ceramics is wrong (the collar-rimmed jars aren't specific to the highland sites).  Done

Ann Killebrew sees recent research pointing unequivocally to Biblical Israel's roots lying in Late Bronze Age Canaan.[12]

Not only Anne Killebrew - this quasi-quote comes at the end of a long discussion in which she sums up all the evidence; it's the current consensus.  Not done

You need extra sources? Tomorrow. PiCo (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Book of Joshua explicitly says that Canaan was not completely conquered during Joshua's time.[13] The question of the degrees of conquest and/or assimilation may not be answered with certainty, as both sides cite a large body of archaeological and other evidence.[14]

Again, this is an argument based on the text of Joshua - this paragraph is about archaeological evidence, which quite unequivocally points to Israelite culture emerging gradually from Canaanite culture,with no break in the cultural tradition.  Done

PiCo (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Many scholars are led to attribute widespread Late Bronze city destructions west of the Jordan to invading Hebrews.

The source says they are "tempted" to attribute this. The wording needs changing.

24.180.173.157 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Historicity

The text behind this section has been long debated and discussed at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah and a consensus version had stood for about a week, so I copied it here. To Dylan's cold-reversion to less specific text, I state the following points, sentence-by-sentence.

1. Compromise was to delete Killebrew's overview of Israel's roots in favor of Dever's. I can happily let this sentence remain as an offering to Dylan unless PiCo also comes here wishing to delete it.
2. Deletion of backup source McDermott re Merneptah seems like nothing for Dylan to quibble over, but an artifact of his cold-revert style.
3. Replacing Lemche's generic statement with Dever's specific statement about highland Israel also seems a clear improvement.
4. Expanding on McNutt's statements and citing specific page numbers rather than ranges (and adding Miller) also seems a clear improvement.
5. Expanding on the highland distinctives from two sources to three also seems a clear improvement.
6. Before the next sentence in Dylan's edit, I inserted a move of the Bava Batra cite, a balancing cite from Coogan, and three sentences from editor Nws apropos to the subject; but none of this is strictly necessary, and it can be left out as a compormise, with the Bava Batra returning to where Dylan reverted it.
7. The edit expanding on the phrase "invading Hebrews" is also from Nws, and I have no strong opinion about it either way.
8. The shrinking of the sentence about Miller and Hayes seems like less than a quibble as well.
9. I deleted Killebrew's summary because it was better represented by Nws's sentences, but since they are not easily accessible, I could go either way on that one also.

Review of the diff shows nothing worth preserving in "Dylan's" text that has not been retained, except for a couple points I may compromise on. Accordingly, Dylan should state, specifically and point-by-point, why he prefers the old version as not being a consensus on this page, or whether he agrees with the compromise position on points where it is offered. JJB 06:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed there, and it's being discussed there right now. Forum shopping is disruptive. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is discussing there but me, just like here. Repeating accusations (of shopping) when asked to quit is disruptive. Neither of you are providing any rationales in your summaries or talk, and the only statement above that has been challenged by your edits has been the pig statement (the highland distinctives), so I take it I may revert everything but that sentence? By failing to respond in any way to any other sentence, you two imply so. JJB 07:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan claims nonconsensus on this page, but it is just us two. Since Dylan is not providing any reasons for his revert, I will restore the improvements. I will be happy to consider other phrasings on the pigs if he actually lodges an objection on any page. JJB 02:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I do not accept your edits as productive and I am part of a discussion about the same material on the talk page that it originated from should be sufficient to show that there is no consensus behind you. It's not so much that it's just the two of us as it's just you all alone with nothing and nobody supporting you. Given these circumstances, if you revert, I reserve the option of countering it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that you can't point to a single diff that proves you are presently discussing any material on that or any talk page, which is again defaulting on defending your reverts. If you think I'm unproductive, say why. Two people continuing to revert on a page should find a policy they can use to resolve their differences; the one I used was "bold again". If you revert again and fail to discuss again, you are violating policy. JJB 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The diff I posted as my edit comment corrects your misconception. I accept your tacit retraction. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That diff is not a consensus, as answered at the ancient history talk page; nor does it have anything to do with the edits to this article, which are wholly different than the two new sentences of PiCo the diff is referring to. So even if it were consensus, since it is wholly inapplicable to this article, you have not provided any reasons responsive to the numbered sentences above. JJB 03:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

John, I realise you're trying to be a good Wiki-citizen by putting only sourced statements in the article, but the end result is unreadable - you can't produce a good piece of narrative prose by simply placing quotations end to end. I honestly think we need to start aggain. PiCo (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, several sentences in a row are identical to your last edit to the ancient history article, so I don't know who you're accusing of poor prose. It would be a bit disruptive to "start aggain" when you have agreed to all of the sentences here except for the pigs (and on that one you gave me a week of silent consensus), just because you don't like how the sentences fit together that you accepted. Please cite specific improvements or specific statements or implications that need to appear. JJB 05:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

John, he's right about the damage you've done to the readability of this section. It would be the opposite of disruptive to fix this damage. Rather than demanding imaginary citations, you need to sit back and allow PiCo to exercise his editing and writing skills here. You've done enough damage for now. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll be delighted to give it a look. John, you are, of course, very welcome to contribute as well - I don't pretend to be infallible. PiCo (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Conquest >> colonialism

I first came to this article looking for where WP talks about the nachlaben of the conquest in western colonialism including US manifest destiny and intending to add well sourced content about that... got all side tracked. will try to get to this over the next week or so. Thanks Dimadick for your work integrating the merged content better and the other improvements!!

but the only stuff that is here is about zionism and that is just one wrinkle in the much bigger story... Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this article

Mariolis MG:, you've been adding an edit on the idea that the battle in which Joshua orders the sun and moon to stand still reflects a genuine solar eclipse, and I've been reverting it on the grounds that your sources aren't reliable. Those sources are various magazine and newspaper articles, all based ultimately on a paper by three scientists from Ben Gurion university. The problem is the scientists, not the newspapers and magazines. I assume they're astronomers, but they're not biblical scholars and don't have status in the subject of biblical studies. They're evidently unaware that the consensus among biblical scholars is that Joshua is a legendary figure, not a historical one, and that little if anything in the Book of Joshua has any historical value - including this supposed battle. Our article makes this clear, and there are multiple reliable sources in the bibliography which you can check. No Joshua, no battle, therefore no eclipse. PiCo (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For a genuine reliable source on this episode, you might read this passage from John Day - it does mention an earlier version of the eclipse theory, which isn't new.PiCo (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Another here: John Walton linking the sun/moon episode to ancient omen texts. Walton, like Day, is a genuine reliable source for this article. PiCo (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Gerald Aardsma

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recent edits by ThomasJamesGodfrey

ThomasJamesGodfrey has stated his desire that I start a discussion about his recent edits to this article. I assume that he will attempt to justify his edits here. Editor2020 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia assumes that the existing article (barring any recent edits) is the WP:consensus version. If you wish to make any non-minor changes to an article you need to justify those changes. If your changes are reverted by another editor and you wish to pursue it, YOU need to start a discussion on the article's Talk page in which you attempt to provide a defense of your changes. If you persuade the other interested editors that your edits improved the article another editor (or yourself) can then reinstall your changes.

Your edits questioned the reliability of the scholarly sources, stating that "scholarly speculation about history is not necessarily fact". I reverted that, stating "That's what the reference say, which is what we follow", because Wikipedia reflects the WP:Reliable Sources. User:Dougweller added his concerns with your edits, citing WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. Editor2020 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Editor2020: Thanks for opening this section and for explaining your understanding of Wikipedia policy with regard to changes that might need to be discussed. I think what you have in mind is only one alternative. I had in mind WP:BRD, where edits (expected to be uncontroversial) are boldly made first, and then discussion comes only after someone decides that the edits should be considered controversial after all and reverts them. It makes no sense for me to try to anticipate every possible objection up front on this talk page. Any serious objections should be stated and defended by a concerned editor, right? In any case, we now have the cycle started. Thanks.

ping:User:Doug Weller is certainly welcome to add his own concerns here, if he has the time and interest to defend them. I dispute all of the ones he expressed privately on my talk page, and I welcome an opportunity to discuss them openly here.

I am disappointed that you misunderstood my edits. Insisting that scholarly speculation about history is not necessarily fact by no means translates to a question about the reliability of any scholarly sources. My edits should not encourage readers to question their reliability either. If you disagree, please suggest alternative wording that still avoids promoting what is actually speculation to the exalted status of fact.

You repeated here your original edit summary, but it was and is too vague and not very helpful. Over here, let's continue our discussion of your concerns by first identifying the antecedent of the first word in the summary. What specific parts of my complex edits did you find problematic and why? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments, as I am wholly in agreement with WP:BRD. I do not think that edits need to be pre-cleared, but should be made and then objections (if any) dealt with only if reverted. That is what I did. Now is your chance to explain why your edits are improvements.

This discussion is not just between you and me. User:Doug Weller and every other interested editor is free to add their views, ideas, opinions, and possible compromises.

I am sorry, but I can't make it any clearer. Your edits conflicted with the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and acted to lessen them. I reverted that. The burden of proof is on you to explain why you edit(s) improve the article. Editor2020 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Editor2020: You said, “I am sorry, but I can't make it any clearer.” I don’t believe it. You could make your concern clearer simply by specifying which parts of my complex edits you found problematic and then by explaining why you found them unacceptable to the point of immediate reversion without discussion. I requested a clearer, less vague, more detailed rationale for reversion twice, first on your own talk page (section 13) and once again here. Was this too much to ask? Am I supposed to guess? I don’t get it.

You asked me to explain why my edits improved the article. I already did this in my edit summaries. Here they are again, in order, for your convenience:

“→‎Second paragraph at top: Avoided presenting as fact what is still only scholarly speculation about ancient history.”

“→‎Historical and archaeological evidence: Expanded the POV in the first paragraph to improve its neutrality, made it clearer that scholarly speculation about history is not necessarily fact, and switched present tense verbs to past tense where appropriate.”

“→‎Bibliography: Added two entries for references used in recent edits to section on historical and archaeological evidence.”

To me, nothing here looks controversial or in need of further justification. If you disagree, the ball is in your court to explain a problem or point me to a real violation of Wikipedia policy. You did make it clear that you misunderstood my attempts to avoid presenting as fact what is still only scholarly speculation about ancient history. The fact that a source covers scholarly speculation by no means implies that it is unreliable, so my edits did not “[question] the reliability of the scholarly sources,” as you alleged. All those edits did was make it clearer to the reader that Wikipedia is not dogmatically presenting a given claim as though it were a fact. Why confuse readers by distorting the nature of a statement, regardless of how reliable its source is?

If you disagree with my analysis of this issue, please do not take us back to square one by repeating or having me reread what you already said. Instead, please explain what is wrong with my analysis or why you disagree with it. Better yet, please suggest wording that addresses my concern while making it even clearer that we are not lessening or questioning the reliability of any source used in legacy revisions of the article. This ought to be recognized as a reasonable way to work expeditiously toward a resolution.

Elsewhere, you encouraged me to comply with WP:WL. Okay. I am fully committed to complying with all Wikipedia policies, including this one. Are you? Please note this paragraph in particular, quoted from the page of interest:

“Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help with dispute resolution. Typically, wikilawyering raises procedural or evidentiary points in a manner analogous to that used in formal legal proceedings, often using ill-founded legal reasoning. It can serve to evade an issue or obstruct the crafting of a workable solution.”

Thanks for also calling my attention to WP:AGF. That’s great advice we can all use. I am determined to identify any real problem with my earlier edits, fix it appropriately, and boldly edit again to improve the article. Please do what you can to help us move boldly ahead in “the crafting of a workable solution.” ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe User:Editor2020 has been too busy to respond to my comment above, or maybe it was too much to expect anyone to specify which parts of my complex edits were problematic or to explain why they were so unacceptable that they had to be immediately reverted without discussion. Who can say? Maybe, as when a mosquito arrives at a crowded beach, the question is not, "What do I do?" It is, "Where do I start?" It may be time for me to reach out to other editors who may be willing to help me move forward toward a resolution and "the crafting of a workable solution."

Let's start with the first sentence I changed. Hopefully, this will shed some light on the issue that Editor2020 addressed through reversion (edit summary: "That's what the reference say, which is what we follow (TW)"). Here is the sentence, with my emphasis added (but not published) to highlight the parts that changed in revision 21:30, 7 May 21019.

Original wording: "The earliest parts of the book are possibly chapters 2–11, the story of the conquest; these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE), but the book was not completed until after the fall of Jerusalem to the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE, and possibly not until after the return from the Babylonian exile in 539 BCE."

Changed wording: "The earliest parts of the book are possibly chapters 2–11, the story of the conquest. These chapters may have later been incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE). The book may not have been completed until after the fall of Jerusalem to the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE, and possibly not until after the return from the Babylonian exile in 539 BCE."

I think the original wording would lead a reader to consider it a fact that chapters 2-11 were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua written in the seventh century BCE and that the book was not completed until after 586 BCE. Is this really "what the reference say[s]" as suggested in the edit summary provided by Editor2020? The reference is to Creach for both versions presented above, so we can check, for free. Did Creach present these claims as facts or as expert speculation? There is a significant difference. Here is my transcription of the relevant excerpt from the cited reference with my highlighting added (not in the original) to show a lack of the certainty normally associated with a presentation of facts.

"The earliest stages of Joshua's formation are probably to be found in chapters 2—11. ... Therefore, it is possible that some form of Joshua 2—11 grew out of that setting. What is more certain is that this section of the current book was incorporated into an early form of Joshua that was oriinally part of the Deuteronomistic History. The Deuteronomistic editing is particularly evident in Joshua 1; 12; 21:43—22:6; and 23, where these sections supply introductory or summary infomation in the style of the book of Deuteronomy. They served to frame an early form of the book, likely written for residents of Judah in the latter period of that nation's monarchy, just before the Babylonian exile (587 B.C.). King Josiah (640—609 B.C.) is the likely sponsor of the writing ... [new paragraph] The contents and date of subsequent additions to the earliest version of the book of Joshua are hotly debated. What seems clear, however, is that the book was not completed until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and perhaps not until the residents of Judah returned from exile in 539 B.C."

Although the word certain appears in this excerpt, it is modified by an adverb to indicate that it is used in a comparative, not absolute sense. In other words, the speculation that follows is less uncertain than the speculation presented in the previous sentence.

I invite feedback from Editor2020 and anyone else here who cares about this issue. My own conclusion is that Creach did not present the statements in question as facts but rather as expert speculation. He was quite honest in this regard, at least in this excerpt.

My opinion by no means suggests that Creach is not a reliable source or that he is less reliable than anyone else. After all, without credible eyewitness testimony or a time machine in good working order, it would be unreasonable to expect any expert to know for a fact when and by whom Joshua was written, leaving expert speculation the best we can expect to have in our day. I suspect Creach did the best he could with the available evidence under assumptions that seemed reasonable to him. One of his assumptions, actually considered by him to be a fact, was "that the date of Israel's occupation of Canaan can be relatively fixed at 1220 B.C. by the inscription of the name Israel on an Egyptian victory monument called the Mernepthah Stele, ..." Creach evidently ignored, dismissed, rejected, or overlooked every other interpretation of the stele evidence, but I digress.

Now I recognize that the changes scrutinized above might not be what Editor2020 intended to challenge, even though they were reverted along with all of the rest of my work on the article submitted the same day. It might be premature, therefore, for me to conclude that Editor2020 did not know whether the edit summary was truthful, or that the reference had not actually been consulted before a decision was made to undo my work. This is why I have requested a list of actual edits deemed unsatisfactory for the reason stated in the edit summary. Should I really have to find out for myself?

I recommend restoring at least the changes detailed above, but I am open to new suggestions. I maintain that what we have in the current version is either a violation of WP:NOR or a mistake in the reference cited. If Creach presented what is actually expert speculation, Wikipedia has no business presenting it to readers as facts instead. So what is the community consensus here? What should we do about this? Once we decide for this one, assuming Editor2020 cannot expedite matters by revealing what parts of my revision really are bad, we can move on to consider improving other parts that I tried to change, one by one.

I know this comment is rather long. If you read all of it, thanks for your patience. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

To cut a long story short, what they teach as fact at WP:CHOPSY it is a fact for us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

But... but... he used a big bold font! Anyone who uses a big bold font can't be wrong!! What next, someone claiming that Time Cube[1][2] is wrong?? -Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I apologize for using the big bold font. I hope that it is not interpreted as shouting and that no one else will imagine that I think I can't be wrong. What I really wanted was highlighting to show what I had changed or to call attention to specific parts of an excerpt I had transcribed. Is there a better way to do this? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Never mind my question above. Someone at the Teahouse answered it for me. I am replacing the big bold font with standard yellow highlighting. I obviously still have a lot to learn here, but I am making progress. Patience is appreciated. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks, but maybe I need a slightly longer story. WP:CHOPSY seems to be all about science, but here we are dealing with history, which calls for a different epistemology. What does it take to establish a fact of history, especially ancient history? It may help you understand my issue if I present it as a shorter story.

I believe Editor202 suggested in an edit summary that the current revision says what a reference (Creach, for example) says. I disagree, because the Wikipedia article presents certain claims as facts, while at least Creach presents them as expert speculation. His speculation could be promoted to the status of a fact, all right, but I believe this would require additional research. This might lead, for example, to discovery of supportive eyewitness testimony that is both well documented and indisputably credible. If this necessary research has been done, the wording of the article could remain unchanged, but in this case, we need a new citation to document the research because of WP:V. If no such citation can be found, or if the research has not been done, we may be dealing with a violation of WP:NOR. In this case, the wording of the article should be adjusted to reflect what the existing reference says (not facts, not original research, but reliable expert speculation).

If you disagree, please explain why. Does my suggested action violate any official Wikipedia policy? I think it would improve the article by properly reflecting the true status of all claims presented, whether fact or expert speculation. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

What seems clear, however, is that the book was not completed until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and perhaps not until the residents of Judah returned from exile in 539 B.C.

— Creach, p. 11

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Your edit summary for the recent reversion was, "Not a valid reason, take it to talk page (TW)." As you can see, I had already taken this issue here two weeks ago. The last contribution before you reverted was mine, addressed to you eleven days ago. Not having received any reply, I naturally assumed that you had no further objection, and no other editor did either.

I need to know why you consider my edit summary "Not a valid reason." All you gave me was a quote that already appeared here in earlier discussion, but without some of its relevant context. Here is the relevant excerpt again but with my highlighting added.

The contents and date of subsequent additions to the earliest version of the book of Joshua are hotly debated. What seems clear, however, is that the book was not completed until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and perhaps not until the residents of Judah returned from exile in 539 B.C.

— Creach, p. 11

Notice that Creach did not say, "What is absolutely clear ...," as I believe he would have, if his intention had been to state a fact instead of his expert speculation. What seems to be true or clear is not necessarily a fact. The wording you restored implies that some editor or a reliable source completed some original research to elevate Creach's speculation to the status of fact, but if this is what happened, I think it has to be verified through reference to a reliable secondary source, or else stating it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice violates Wikipedia policy.

Please explain what is wrong with the reason I am giving for my edit. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

My take is that you are either unwilling or unable to learn our WP:RULES. But not for lack of advice. Wikipedia just isn't the venue where you can undo the academic consensus. Wikipedia is the place wherein historical criticism trumps your theological convictions. See WP:GOODBIAS and WP:RNPOV.

Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.

Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar; Wikipedia is not the venue for revising scientific opinion.

Your question seems to boil down to this: "May I cast doubt upon WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP?" No, you may not, and you will get blocked and eventually banned if you persist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for taking the time to reply in more detail. Your latest response suggests a misunderstanding of the intent behind my edit, which you hastily reverted. Rather than address my specific concerns, carefully explained above, you concluded, "Your question seems to boil down to this: 'May I cast doubt upon WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP?' No, you may not, and you will get blocked and eventually banned if you persist."

You failed to identify any specific question in my comments here, so you left me guessing about what I actually said that you feel a need to boil down for me. It looks to me as though you merely rephrased a misconception introduced in your first response in this section (11:07, 12 May 2019). There, instead of boiling my question down, you wanted to cut a long story short, but in both cases, you missed the point of my edit and imagined a distortion of my intent instead. Taking us back to square one is no way to have a rational discussion leading to article improvement. Please either address the analysis I actually presented, or, if you find it flawless, admit that you have no valid objection and undo your reversion.

I am certainly not casting doubt on the scholarship cited with or without my recent edit. I am simply insisting that the Book of Joshua article should either faithfully reflect what Creach says, or, if the legacy wording covers original research, it should cite another secondary, reliable source where the claims in question have been presented as facts, now established as such by the mainstream scholarly community.

Besides what I have already explained in previous comments here, please consider this too. The legacy wording includes the statement, "The earliest parts of the book are possibly chapters 2–11, the story of the conquest." This reflects what Creach wrote, specifically, "The earliest stages are probably to be found in chapters 2—11." The words I highlighted in these quotes both present a statement as expert speculation. The article does not say, "The earliest parts of the book are chapters 2–11." It goes on to cover more of Creach's expert speculation, but it improperly ignores some clear indications of uncertainty in the original. As a result, readers are naturally invited to believe that some of the statements must have been established as facts, even though the cited source presents them as only expert speculation, not as facts. This is the problem I believe needs to be fixed in a manner consistent with Wikipedia guidance.

If you have a better suggestion for fixing it, let's talk about it. In any case, please assume good faith and do not persist in distorting the intent behind my recent edit. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Imho, your arguments were about nitpicking "seems clear" vs. "it is absolutely clear" and some WP:Wikilawyering about the meaning of WP:NPOV (WP:RNPOV is germane). I usually don't delve too much into details, I just told you the purpose (principle) of Wikipedia and that it is wise to follow it. You're neither the first nor the last to use the argument that "mainstream scholarship does not equal fact". Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

ThomasJamesGodfrey, Creach is describing the concept of the Deuteronomistic history. The idea is basically that King Josiah in the late 7th century sponsored the writing of a history of Israel; it was then re-written during the exile and yet again after that (both times in the 6th century), giving us the books we have today. I suggest that, rather than argue here with every other editor (and alienating them in the process - never a good idea), you read some books on the subject. Read only books written after 2000, as scholarship is constantly changing. This book by Campbell and O'Brien is a good starting point (read just the Introduction - it should open at that section). Also useful is Brian Peterson's "The Authors of the Deuteronomistic History" - see his chapter 1, which is another overview of the scholarly debate.

After those, read Thomas Dozeman's study of Joshua 1-12. Dozeman is a leading scholar and anything he says can be trusted. Most notably he describes the breakdown of the theory of a Deuteronomistic History. Begin on page 18 (Dozeman is more technical than the first two and possibly rather hard going); the following pages discuss composition. On page 27 he discusses a date for the book, placing it between the late monarchy and the early post-exilic period - which is what our article says.

All the best :) PiCo (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for turning your attention to the issue before us here.

What we are doing here does not seem to fit what is described in the essay on wikilawyering. If you disagree and can point me to some specific "quasi-legal practices" that you noticed here, please let me know. What formal legal terms have I used in an inappropriate way? I may need help understanding what I have been doing wrong (WP:BITE).

Arguments about nitpicking? I don't think any nitpicking is necessary. Does my analysis of the issue that I want to address here depend on what the meaning of the word is is, or on what the meaning of the word seems seems to be? I appeal to a common sense understanding of what Creach wrote, considering the relevant context, which you may have overlooked. We need to decide whether the article should present his cited statements in Wikipedia's voice as statements of fact or as expert speculation.

Before we can carry on a productive discussion about this, you need to clarify what your point is. Are you suggesting that there is no need to distinguish between fact and speculation? Or are you suggesting that Creach intended to position his statements not merely as expert speculation, but rather as facts, now established as such by the mainstream scholarly community? If so, does your opinion about this apply to each one of the statements affected by my reverted edits, or to only one or two of them? What should we be discussing here? Please be specific.

I honestly want to fix my edits so that they avoid any valid problem that you or anyone else may have found in my earlier work, but if I don't even know what is broken, I certainly cannot fix it. If you actually have nothing against my edits after all, that's okay, as long as you admit it by undoing the reversion. I would not hold it against you. Neither one of us is perfect, right? Of course, if anyone else presents a reasonable suggestion for fixing or improving my edits, I would have to handle it in a satisfactory manner too before trying again. If no such suggestion comes to light, I think I should simply try my previous edits again. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo: Thanks for your friendly suggestions for boning up on the concept of Deuteronomistic history. Your advice not to argue here with every other editor is well taken. I certainly do not want to do that or to alienate anyone. My goal is simply to explain my analysis of what appears to me to be defects in the Book of Joshua article, receive reasonable feedback from the community, and rationally discuss whatever needs to be discussed before making another good-faith attempt to improve the article (WP:BRD). Of course, if some editors want to throw in advice and warnings for a new editor like me, that's fine too, but not necessarily relevant to the task at hand. Another option is to ignore this discussion entirely. This might be the most popular option.

I see that you have been interested in this article for years. Do you care to take a position on my analysis of the fact/speculation issue? Do you agree with it? If not, can you specify problems with it that I may have overlooked? Feel free to ask questions about it, of course, if anything in my analysis is puzzling. I think discussions are more productive if questions are asked and answered. If one participant guesses what another meant and guesses wrong, it gets messy.

You mentioned Dozeman's "date for the book," but it is not clear why. Are you suggesting that the statements affected by my edits should be presented as facts in Wikipedia's voice, but Dozeman should be cited as the reliable source, not Creach? Well, there I go guessing. Please just clarify your point. Thanks. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Creach (2003) and Dozeman (2015) are both reliable, but Dozeman is rather more recent and therefore more likely to reflect current developments.

Creach is talking about the composition of Joshua in terms of the "Deuteronomistic history", or DtrH for short, an idea put forward by Noth in the 1940s and pretty much universally accepted up until the beginning of this century. The DtrH sees Joshua composed as part of a whole group of books - Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Noth saw it as the work of a single author at a single time, but Frank Moore Cross (I think) later said it was the work of two or three authors extending over a century, and that idea is the one that became widespread - so widespread that it could be called a consensus. I think this is why TGeorge is annoyed with you - you're rejecting that consensus (without even knowing about it).

Dozeman talks in terms of more recent developments, which have seen the DtrH questioned - Dozeman says Joshua was composed as a single book, not as part of a series, and then later edited to fit in between Deuteronomy and Judges as a bridge. But he agrees with the DtrH on dates - he says it couldn't have been composed before the later monarchy or after the early Persian period. (Or I think he does - see his page 27).

I do think the article is faulty for talking only about the DtrH, via Creach, without mentioning the more recent developments noted in Dozeman, but I also think you need to do some reading before you edit. Don't worry too much about Wikipedia, the world will continue without it.PiCo (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you asked about fact vs speculation and I didn't answer. Everything is speculation. Nobody knows when or how Joshua or any other book of the Old Testament was written, and nobody ever will. What we try to do is identify the weight of opinion among scholars. If they all agree (a consensus), that's great; if there's a large majority and a small minority, we mention baoth and identify them; if there's a very large majority and a very small minority, we ignore that minority. How do we find out about consensuses, majorities and minorities? Sometimes an author will very kindly say, "The majority opinion is..." or even "There is a consensus...". If we have that, it's gold, and we mention it in our artticles. But very often we can't be so lucky, and what we write is guesswork based on wide reading. Reading fairly recent books - scholarly opinion keeps changing, and today's consensus can be tomorrow's foolish mistake.PiCo (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposed text

I'm starting a separate thread for Aardsma as a source to separate it from other issues. The text that was added and then removed is:

However, scholarly doubts about the historicity of Joshua and speculation about its origin depend on a contested belief that relevant evidence should be dated to the second millennium BCE.

Within his own specialty Aardsma might indeed be a useful source, but he's clearly a fringe source for biblical issues. He has at least two websites but the main one is Biblical chronologist.org His publications listed there seem to be of two types, one purely scientific, the others Bible related. The latter are mainly published in Creationist publications. There are two that are not, "Evidence for a Lost Millennium in Biblical Chronology" and "New Radiocarbon Dates for the Reed Mat from the Cave of the Treasure, Israel," Although these are published in Radiocarbon (journal), they were not accepted through peer review but as part the proceedings of two International conferences on radiocarbon dating.

"The now deleted text itself said "However scholarly doubts about the historicity of Joshua and speculation about its origin depend on a contested belief that relevant evidence should be dated to the second millennium BCE." Leaving aside the fact that the use of "however" is denigrated as WP:EDITORIALIZING, so far as I can see nothing in the sources says this. It appears to be original reaearch. Back to Aardsma. Reliability is not the default, so the issue is what makes this Creationist a reliable source for biblical issues? Why should we include him? Are his objections to radiocarbon dating taken seriously? I can only find one mention of him, and that says "Since the late 1950s, objections to the overall accuracy of the method have been based almost exclusively on quasi-theological grounds most often—but not exclusively (e.g., Cremo and Thompson 1993:764-794)—expressed within a European and American Protestant fundamentalist, young-earth, “creationist” framework (e.g., Brown 1983, 1986; Aardsma 1991)."[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1mGSBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=lost+millennium+%22Gerald+Aardsma%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUqqmZvI7iAhVGQxUIHZw-Bts4ChC7BQg7MAM#v=onepage&q=aardsma&f=false Chronometric Dating in Archaeology} (the 1991 source is his paper on the Genesis Flood). His main usefulness here seems to be his argument for a lost millennium. I can't find any mainstream commentary on this but I can find a Creationist source, Bryan Wood. He writes:

"Apart from the author’s admitted lack of knowledge in the field of archaeology (p. 5), the major problem with the book is its narrowly restricted view. The author professes to be a scientist by training (p. 5), yet he has adopted a very unscientific approach. He has based his theory on the archaeology of only one or two sites, when in fact there is a great wealth of data, both Biblical and non-Biblical, which relates to the date of the Exodus and Conquest. If one is going to put forward a major new theory, it is incumbent upon the originator to test the theory against all of the pertinent data, rather then just one or two data points. Such a myopic approach is not limited to the work under review, but is a problem endemic in Biblical archaeology.

The author’s approach is to select various bits and pieces of information which seem to support his hypothesis, while neglecting the large bulk of data which discredit it. In addition, he uses unorthodox identifications, interpretations and chronologies to bolster his conclusions. When the full weight of the available data is brought to bear on the views expressed in A New Approach, it is readily apparent that they cannot stand. A critical review of the proposed chronology reveals that it is misguided, lacks credibility and is without a rational basis. Aardsma’s 1,000 year gap idea cannot be taken seriously and should be immediately dismissed. Giving it even passing consideration distracts from the correct understanding of Biblical history and chronology, and God’s working among mankind in times past."[3] What I see is a fringe source that doesn't even meet WP:UNDUE for this article or the Battle of Jericho where it's also been used. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Doug Weller's summary of this topic is excellent. I concur that this fringe source needs to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We certainly cannot use it as a source for material that contradicts established science, and it isn't popular enough among creationists for us to use it as a source when we document the major divisions within creationism. I would also note that, despite saying at User talk:ThomasJamesGodfrey#Gerald Aardsma is not a reliable source that he will join this discussion and defend the source, User:ThomasJamesGodfrey has not yet done so. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for clearly explaining your concerns regarding my recent edits here, where it will be more convenient for the community to review our discussion or participate in it. You obviously put a lot of thought and effort into your analysis, and I appreciate the help. I still dispute most of your contentions, but I concede that one of them holds water. I definitely need to fix that one troublesome sentence to address that one issue. Your comment is fairly lengthy, but just six words in it—“It appears to be original reaearch”—were all it took to change my mind. Nevertheless, I would like to address your other points here too, for future reference and perhaps further discussion. Sorry for the late response. I had a busy day.

DW: “Within his own specialty Aardsma might indeed be a useful source, but he's clearly a fringe source for biblical issues.”

Your claim, “... he’s clearly a fringe source ...” might be true or it might not. How did you come to this conclusion? It would be good to focus on ideas rather than on an individual person. I believe the Wikipedia concept of a “fringe source” is supposed to involve a particular fringe theory. The troublesome sentence I added was intended to make a point that should be beyond dispute in all quarters, not to explain Aardsma’s idea about a lost millennium, which could indeed be considered a fringe theory. I believe information about Aardsma’s websites and publications listed there are entirely irrelevant to the important reliable source issue, because I have no plan to reference any of them. I have more to say about this issue below.

DW: “Although these [two Bible-related articles] are published in [[Radiocarbon {journal)]], they were not accepted through peer review but as part the proceedings of two International conferences on radiocarbon dating.”

TJG: This much is quite true, all right, but does this mean that those articles do not qualify as reliable sources? Notice the first footnote in the earlier article: “The author and editors hope that this paper will generate constructive response to its radical revision of biblical chronology based upon the application of ¹⁴C dates.” Of course the author (Aardsma) had this hope, but what about the four editors? Should we believe that Aardsma got his article published without any of them reviewing it? Six years later, three different editors published another article covering some of the same ideas. Is it reasonable to suppose that all seven of those editors published what ought to be considered “a fringe source”? Did they really publish the work of a man who should be considered unqualified to produce reliable research in the area of biblical chronology? What do you think?

This part of your analysis is particularly interesting in the context of the Wikipedia article on the Book of Joshua. Another article—by Bruins and van der Plicht—in the very same 1995 Radiocarbon issue has been included in the bibliography since August of 2017. Has anyone else in the community expressed concerns here about its reliability due to lack of peer review?

It may be more important in this regard to consider Wikipedia policy. Is there one that absolutely requires peer review? The point under WP:RS that seems most relevant is “Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.” Should the Bruins and van der Plicht article be considered reliable by this criterion?

DW: “Leaving aside the fact that the use of ‘however’ is denigrated as WP:EDITORIALIZING,” ...

TJG: Thanks for leaving this issue aside, but I would like to add a couple of points before I leave it aside too. The Wikipedia manual of style does not forbid the use of however. The word is just supposed to be used with caution to avoid editorializing, along with other words that link two statements, but being one of the other “words to watch.” In the current revision of the article (without my proposed edit), however already occurs twice, evidently without complaint from the community.

DW: “Reliability is not the default, so the issue is what makes this Creationist a reliable source for biblical issues? Why should we include him?”

TJG: Whether Aardsma is a creationist or an evolutionist should be irrelevant. Beliefs about origins have nothing to do with our topic. Except for that issue, your questions are otherwise good ones. Biblical chronology ought to be a legitimate biblical issue, and Aardsma’s training and expertise in radiocarbon dating may well be why the Radiocarbon editors considered him qualified to present reliable material in this area. Do you have any good reason to disagree with them?

DW: “Are his objections to radiocarbon dating taken seriously?”

TJG: This would have been a good question to ask in 1991. As far as I can tell, he has no current objections to radiocarbon dating, and his views on this topic are now quite ordinary. Your question here is now like asking someone who never beats his wife, “Do you still beat your wife?”

DW: “His main usefulness here seems to be his argument for a lost millennium.”

TJG: Thanks for your encouraging opinion about the usefulness of Aardsma’s work here, but my proposed edit did not mention this argument in the main text of the article, and I have no plan to try to have it covered in the future, since I recognize that it is a viewpoint currently held by a relatively tiny minority. Right, it should not be given undue weight (WP:UNDUE).

Nevertheless, I still see a good reason to reference his articles in footnotes, and I welcome comments on it. The current revision emphasizes the consensus conclusion that “the Book of Joshua holds little historical value for early Israel and most likely reflects a much later period,” but it fails to mention that this conclusion depends on a belief or assumption that relevant evidence should be dated to the second millennium BCE. If the relevant evidence should actually be dated a thousand years earlier, then scholarly doubts and speculation about a late origin of the book may actually be unfounded after all. Conclusions based on a study of irrelevant evidence are also irrelevant. This much should be beyond dispute. I just need to be much more careful to avoid adding original research in any future edit.

DW: “I can't find any mainstream commentary on this but I can find a Creationist source, Bryan Wood. He writes: ...”

TJG: Thanks for finding Bryant G. Wood’s critique of the first edition of Aardsma’s book about his lost millennium idea. In spite of the scathing assessment at the end of it, the article does demonstrate that at least someone took Aardsma’s idea seriously enough and important (or threatening) enough to critique it in detail. However, we are still missing a rebuttal from Aardsma, who has spent years researching biblical chronology since 1993 and found much more support for his idea that the Wood critique did not take into account. I think it is high time for an updated, balanced evaluation of the lost millennium idea. In my opinion, it should be quite different from the one you quoted above. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

References

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: you're missing some vital context. Wood and Aardsma have been feuding for years, see Aardsma's 1996 critique of Wood. All that is obvious is that neither has unanimous support form the relevant Creationist community. It doesn't make either of them any more of a reliable source nor does it help Aardsma meet WP:UNDUE although you seem to have accepted that. And of course it matters whether someone is a Creationist or accepts evolution (no one that I know of uses the term "evolutionist" except Creationists, are you an exception?), Creationists have to accept that the Bible is literally true so they cannot accept evidence that shows that it isn't. I take your point about "however" having been in the article (I just removed it). About the only time editors are likely to completely read an article is when it's being formally assessed to grade it as a "good article" or a "featured article". That would have been picked up during the process. Finally, maybe there should be a look at the lost millennium idea, but I think it would be a waste of time and that's why it hasn't happened. If you can persuade some mainstream academics to do so, great. You say you see a good reason to continue to use him. But you lack WP:CONSENSUS so that would be a very bad idea. You could go to WP:RSN to ask the wider community for input of course. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for responding. I left my desk very late, but when I returned this morning, I checked to be sure that my April 24 edits for the Battle of Jericho article have been reverted. You had already done this a couple of days ago. I did not receive an automatic notice of this, but I have been well aware of your objection the whole time, obviously. Can I add articles to a watch list to get a notification whenever someone reverts my edits? Anyway, thanks for taking care of that other article too. I would have done it myself, if no one else had.

You seem to be worried that I might try again to add a reference to Aardsma's work even without community consensus. I actually take all of your warnings seriously and plan to submit any future ideas here for review. No need to worry. I am not a jerk and certainly not a vandal.

You did not answer all of my questions related to fringe sources and reliability, but that's okay. You have already done plenty for now. We can get back to open questions later as needed. Life goes on. We may all be busy and have other priorities.

My edits to the other article were simpler than the ones I made here. I still maintain that the rationale that User:Editor2020 gave for reverting my edits here is unsatisfactory. Removing just the one sentence and references to Aardsma's work, leaving the rest alone, and explaining that it was because of original research would have been more appropriate, in my opinion. Do you agree? I may well put some of my edits back in, but before I do, I plan to seek feedback from Editor2020 on this page. Of course, you and anyone else should feel welcome to weigh in as well. The no-original-research policy applies to all edits, not just mine, but further discussion of this other issue is off-topic in this section.

Thanks for explaining why you believe it matters whether someone is a creationist even in the context of an article on the Book of Joshua. Atheists have to believe that parts of the Bible are not literally true, so they cannot accept interpretations of evidence suggesting that they are, right? I think different experts can look at the very same evidence and reach dramatically different conclusions, based on their particular interpretation of it. That's because interpretations necessarily involve assumptions, and different experts accept different assumptions as reasonable. Bias might be universal. It could even blind someone to evidence that ought to be taken into account but is conveniently ignored instead. This could happen to me or even to a seasoned Wikipedia editor.

Evidence related to historicity is certainly no exception. I recommend not excluding the work of any reliable source simply because of a known bias, whatever it is. It makes more sense to me to focus on ideas rather than the people who present them. This is no place for ad hominem arguments, right? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: Quick response. Although obviously an atheist doesn't believe in the supernatural, views on the historicity of the Bible aren't split between atheists and Christians. Most Christian churches accept that evolution takes place. Many Christians don'w believe in Adam and Eve, Noah, etc - they don't consider these necessary for Christian faith. A recent poll of UK self-identified Christians showed that 17% didn't believe in the crucifixion. There was a Bishop of Durham who didn't believe in the Virgin Birth or the Crucifixion. Creationists don't agree on the age of the earth. As for reliable sources, yes they can have a bias, we use biassed sources all the time. But, being a reliable source isn't enough, it still has to pass WP:UNDUE. But Creationists are not reliable sources for science because they reject its principles. Oh, read WP:WATCHLISt. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

TJG, Looking again at the sentence starting "This much is true", I realise that I overlooked the fact that where you copied a note that says “The author and editors hope that this paper will generate constructive response to its radical revision of biblical chronology based upon the application of 14C dates.” that the editors who signed that were not Radiocarbon editors as you thought but as the pdf itself makes clear, editors of the conference proceedings, as are the other editors of the second paper. No editors from Radiocarbon commented. I should have picked that up as it would be very odd for Radiocarbon editors to comment on an article in the proceedings of a conference. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I am not sure what to make of your claim, “...views on the historicity of the Bible aren't split between atheists and Christians.” If it is true, it certainly would surprise me, but you worded it so broadly, I wonder whether you were exaggerating. Maybe I misunderstood it. What does “historicity of the Bible” mean? That the Bible has existed in real history? Or what? Maybe you meant that for any given dispute over the historicity of an event reported in the Bible, one might find at least one atheist and at least one Christian on every side of it. I would find this version of your claim less amazing and much easier to believe. I am no pollster in a position to prove you wrong, no matter what you meant.

Your statement, “...Creationists are not reliable sources for science because they reject its principles,” makes no sense to me. What principle of science is a creationist obligated to reject? How do you define science? And why we are talking about science here? I think the Book of Joshua is supposed to contain truth claims about history, not science, but maybe you prefer definitions that blur the distinction between science and history. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"Bias might be universal. It could even blind someone to evidence that ought to be taken into account but is conveniently ignored instead. This could happen to me or even to a seasoned Wikipedia editor." Based on this description, you are implying confirmation bias: "Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses." But I think you are overlooking a requirement for Wikipedia's reliable sources:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
• Is Aardsma regarded as an authoritive source on archaeology? Based on his self-description, he has no relevant qualifications: "Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma obtained B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in physics from the University of Guelph in 1978 and 1979 respectively, and a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Toronto in 1984." Dimadick (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: My comment implying confirmation bias was hypothetical. It should not be construed as an accusation. I think one way to manifest it in a discussion is by refusing to acknowledge a reasonable point made by someone else with a different point of view. This makes it difficult to move toward a rational resolution. Maybe any concession would be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy, but if this is what is going on, I think we are moving out of the realm of rational discussion. It must then be some other kind of social interaction.

Thanks for helping us consider the Wikipedia requirement for reliable sources (first bullet). Notice the "or both" in there. I think this means that the requirement is met if a source is (1) published material with a reliable publication process, or else (2) an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, "or both" (1 and 2). Do you agree with this much?

Notice that Wikipedia does not provide criteria that editors could use to vet a person. For example, it does not say, "An author must be rejected (considered an unreliable source) if his age is known and less than 25 years." It does not say, "An author he must be rejected if he lacks a Ph.D. in a relevant field." I think Wikipedia has a good reason for this approach, for not relying on its editors to vet people. The big idea is to have the vetting done instead by established experts in the field of interest, right? (Hopefully, they will care mostly about the quality of claims or ideas presented without relying on any ad hominem argument for rejecting a person as unreliable.) For example, if Radiocarbon editors consider Aardsma a reliable source, it is not up to us to second guess their judgment. I think we are supposed to judge just the reliability of the publisher or its publication process. I suppose alternative (2) above is included to allow for exceptional cases where the author does not use an independent publisher. Do you disagree with anything in this paragraph? If so, please explain.

On the question in your second bullet, assuming that what I just explained is right, I think we get our answer by asking whether Aardsma has any published material in the field of archaeology associated with a reliable publication process. Our answer should not have anything to do with a consideration of things like his age, degrees, or "relevant qualifications." Aren't we supposed to judge claims or ideas, not people—claims or ideas judged to be important for our readers to consider? I think Wikipedia requires that we do this through references to reliable sources, as ultimately judged by others who are established experts in a relevant field. I am a relatively new editor. If I have misunderstood what Wikipedia actually requires, I look up to more experienced editors to clarify the rules through references to official policy or guidance I may have overlooked. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: "What principle of science is a creationist obligated to reject?", They reject geology by claiming that major features that took millions of years to form were all formed during a forty day global flood within the last few thousand years. They reject physics by claiming that the rate of radioactive decay fluctuates wildly without fluctuations in the heat produced. They reject biology by rejecting natural selection creating new species. They reject astronomy by claiming that the speed of light is not a constant and that light from objects hundreds of millions of light years away are from objects that only existed within the last few thousand years and that the light traveled that distance in that short amount of time. They reject linguistics by claiming that all all languages are equally ancient. They reject paleontology by replacing the rich and extremely detailed record of evolutionary history that paleontologists have built up with a theory that is was all happened at the same time. As the National Academy of Sciences states: "Creationist views reject scientific findings and methods".[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks for taking a stab at my questions for User:Doug Weller, but frankly, I think you could have given me a much better answer if you had first thought about a reasonable definition of science. Geology is a science or a field of science, not a principle of science. The same goes for physics, biology, astronomy, linguistics, and paleontology.

Was the National Academy of Sciences statement that you referenced any better? Are "scientific findings" supposed to be considered principles of science? I don't think so. Do you? I agree that scientific methods can be considered principles of science, but what specific methods are we talking about? I think you are looking for at least one legitimate, scientific method that a creationist is obligated to reject. Observation? Hypothesis formation? Repeatable experiments to test a hypothesis? I can't think of a one. Can you?

Back to your answer, are you sure that your information is correct? Aardsma is a creationist, but he certainly does not claim "that major features that took millions of years to form were all formed during a forty day global flood within the last few thousand years." Frankly, I don't know a single creationist who believes the Flood of Noah lasted only forty days. My Ph.D. is in linguistics. If what you say is correct, how in the world did I ever get through graduate school without having it drilled into me that all languages are not "equally ancient"? I don't recall a single lecture where this point was made. Frankly, I don't know any linguist, creationist or otherwise, who believes that "all all languages are equally ancient," but it is clear to me that plenty of linguistic studies can be conducted without any concern at all for the antiquity of any given language, let alone all languages. For how many centuries did astronomers conduct their scientific studies before the speed of light was even known? The truth is that many, if not most, creationists have lost interest in the idea that the speed of light has changed. What creationist actually claims that "the rate of radioactive decay fluctuates wildly without fluctuations in the heat produced"? Please provide a reference to back this up or admit (at least to yourself), that your own claim is bogus.

This brings me to what I consider to be another problem with your answer. We are supposed to be talking about science, but all of your examples, except for the one about radioactive decay, involve speculation about history. I think you have blurred the distinction between science and history in your own mind, maybe without realizing it. Have you actually thought about this and have a good reason to lump them together? If so, please explain. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I can simplify things for you. Your arguments have failed to convince a single person that there are reliable sources supporting the lost millennium idea. Your arguments have failed to convince a single person that Gerald Aardsma is a reliable source. Your arguments have failed to convince a single person that your view of what science is and is not is correct. Neither I or Doug Weller are willing to devote any further time to discussing this in deyail with you. I wrote an essay that covers this exact situation and gives what most people think is excellent advice. Perhaps it will help you. The essay is at WP:1AM. A related essay that may help is WP:GOODBIAS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)--Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Thanks for the two links. Your essay was excellent, both in content and presentation. Well done. I have no problem at all with the position expressed in the Jimmy Wales quotation that you featured. Your specific applications of it may be another story, but let's not get distracted by them. Focus is good.

Thanks too for your effort to try to simplify things for me, but I think you misunderstood what is going on here. It is not a one-against-many situation where I am one lonely dissenter, desperate to convince many others that I am right and they are all wrong. I am a new editor. Only two of my recent edit efforts, both very similar, have been reverted. I accepted this without engaging in any edit warring, and now I am engaged in a discussion to clarify my understanding of the reliable source policy. I don't see this as an argument at all. Do you? I asked Doug Weller a question. He ignored it. You answered it. I thanked you for it and asked you follow-up questions, including related comments and opinions from my own point of view. Was I ever rude or argumentative? If so, I may need help understanding how I goofed. Please be specific.

Well, never mind. I understand that you are not willing to discuss this in detail with me, and that's okay. We are all volunteers here, right? You have no obligation to me. As for Doug Weller, if you had some way to find out that he no longer wants to participate either, fine. Maybe some other editor will come along and answer the questions I had for you or explain what you said that made no sense to me. As far as I am concerned, it could be you or Doug Weller after all. People sometimes do change their mind. I see this as a learning experience, not as a defeat in some kind of ugly battle. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that I see what the problem is, and it is largely my fault. Wikipedia attracts different types of editors who work on different kinds of things. One group is focused on people who are paid to edit Wikipedia. You will find them hanging around Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and monitoring pages about corporations. Another group is focused on whether various sources are reliable enough for us to use. You will find them hanging around Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and monitoring pages that get a lot of unsourced edits. Another group (Which includes me and Doug) are focused on editors who try to get Wikipedia to stop criticizing Creationism, Scientology, Acupuncture, or people who sell magic cancer pills. You will find us hanging around Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and monitoring religion and medicine pages. There is one other group of editors who may interest you; they are focused on welcoming new editors and answering their questions -- something that Doug and I are not particularly good at. You will find them hanging around Wikipedia:Teahouse and monitoring the New Pages Feed. Because you are asking your question at the talk page for Book of Joshua you are seeing that group of editors who are watching to see that that sort of page reflects mainstream science. In my opinion, if you go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask the same questions you are asking here, you will have a much more positive experience. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Got it. Thanks for explaining. I hold nothing against you. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I ignored your question because I felt I'd spent enough time trying to help you and felt there was little more that I could do, particularly after your " but maybe you prefer definitions that blur the distinction between science and history." I don't feel I can deal well with your mode of discourse and have thus disengaged. And if I'm right, and you are a creationist, then your faith is a barrier to communication. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"Another group (Which includes me and Doug) are focused on editors who try to get Wikipedia to stop criticizing Creationism" While I find Creationists rather annoying, such edits typically involve the Genesis creation narrative and other articles concerning the origin myths in the Book of Genesis. The Book of Joshua is not exactly a hot topic in evolution and creation debates, since it does not feature claims concerning the origin of life on Earth. User:ThomasJamesGodfrey has specifically suggested a source concerning the historicity of the Book of Joshua, he has not suggested adding any defense of Creationism in this article. A debate in that direction would be out of topic. Dimadick (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: You are exactly right. Thanks for making that point for me.

I am still mystified why Doug Weller and Guy Macon wanted to involve me in a discussion about creationists here. It seems to me to be an irrelevant issue, out of topic in the context of Joshua, but Doug Weller explained why he disagrees, and I innocently asked three follow-up questions. If they hit a raw nerve or caused frustration or even a felt need for a hostile response, it may be a disappointing surprise to me, but not really my problem. I hold nothing against those Wikipedians and still appreciate their past efforts to help me. My questions can be left on the table, whether they are good or bad. I see no real "barrier to communication" here except possibly an unwillingness to give honest answers to challenging questions about claims and ideas (not people). Can ad hominem nonsense ever be helpful? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There's considerable irony here - I don't think I've made any ad hominem "nonsense", specifics would be nice - I'm not criticising Aardsma personally, just some of his ideas. However, these personal attacks on me.... @Dimadick: creationism deals with more than the origin of life on earth, so I'm not sure what you mean. I'm concerned about using a Aardsma both because he's a creationist and because his views don't seem significant in light of WP:UNDUE. Now if ThomasJamesGodfrey no longer wishes to use Aardsma, fine, that deals with that issue. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"creationism deals with more than the origin of life on earth, so I'm not sure what you mean." Creationisms main claim is that "Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation." What else they believe can differ greatly between different schools of Creationist thought. Dimadick (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: yes, it varies widely. I had in mind issues such as biblical inerrancy, fringe beliefs about radio-carbon dating, etc. Creation science covers much of this. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Your summary point about creationism is well taken. I don't think Aardsma has any fringe beliefs about radiocarbon dating. He might have had some in the past, but let's not hang any long-repudiated beliefs around his neck like an albatross. I suppose I could be wrong, but if his claims about radiocarbon dating ever need to be evaluated with regard to WP:UNDUE, to be fair, I think the only ones that would matter would be ones advanced in a source or reference proposed for mention in a Wikipedia article. People do sometimes change their mind. A fringe theory could later be exchanged for a different theory widely considered more reasonable. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't believe I have accused anyone here of interjecting ad hominem nonsense, but if the shoe fits, maybe it should be worn. I think this entire section has mostly been about a man or his beliefs (or creationist beliefs) unrelated to the main text of my reverted edits. Note the section title.

Have I ever launched a personal attack against you? If so, please be specific. Maybe you misunderstood something I said. I hope you don't count challenging questions, or a failure to accept one or more of your claims without question, as personal attacks. Otherwise, I don't understand how any productive discussion leading to better Wikipedia articles would be possible in a collaborative effort.

You be the judge. Suppose someone argues, "We can't accept so-and-so as a reliable source, because he is a creationist, and a creationist has to believe that the Bible is literally true, regardless of what might be concluded by others, based on their interpretation of available physical evidence." Should this count as an ad hominem argument? Or suppose the reason were simply, "He has no relevant qualifications," or "He lacks academic credentials in a relevant field." Same thing or not? Is it really up to us to vet people by judging their worldview or qualifications? If so, please point me to the applicable Wikipedia policy or guidance.

I have no problem with anyone criticizing Aardsma's claims or ideas here, but the claim or idea in question ought to be one that someone wants to cover in a Wikipedia article, right? I think the same principle applies to WP:UNDUE. If someone has a fringe theory about one thing, maybe a belief that the tooth fairy has no teeth, this alone should not mean that every other idea he has ever had is also fringe and therefore ineligible for mention in the article. For example, a tooth fairy theory would be irrelevant if the idea under consideration is the correct biblical date for an event reported in Joshua, or the idea that most scholars make the contested assumption that relevant evidence of the event must be dated to the second millennium BCE. If you disagree with any of this, please explain. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

One tip: You talk too much. This page is about improving the article. Nobody here wants to read about tooth fairies or when you left your desk. Be concise. Do not clutter up the page, concentrate on what is relevant for improving the article. There are other pages where you can do that, such as Wikipedia:Teahouse. I know this can be hard.

So, is there anything left to discuss that concerns the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Good point and good advice. Thanks for the tip. I’ll try to do better.

To answer your question, yes. For this section, is there any good reason not to reference articles by Gerald Aardsma published in Radiocarbon (journal), provided that each citation is relevant and that the only other reason for concern is our reliable source policy? Let's reject any ad hominem argument against the idea. Are you also asking with regard to the section above this one (on my recent edits)? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a good reason. WP:PSTS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Every scientific study is a primary source. There are far too many scientific studies to quote them all in Wikipedia, and that is one reason why WP is reluctant to use them. If a primary source is important (which means it is influential), there will be reliable secondary sources that quote them. Then we quote the secondary sources, and sometimes, if the primary source is very important, we may even quote it itself. If a primary source is not important, we should ignore it.

Applied to Aardsma's study: if it has been favorably quoted by reliable secondary sources, we should quote those. If it has not, that is an indication that the part of the academic community which is concerned with the subject does not think much of it, and we should ignore it. That is another reason why we prefer secondary sources.

Usually, mixing sections is not a good idea, so, no, I was only asking about this section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Thanks for answering and explaining.

I think your answer applies to only one of the two Aardsma articles I cited. I agree that one of them qualifies as a primary source by the Wikipedia definition based on one example provided: "... a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." The one dated 2001 mainly covers the outcome of radiocarbon dating conducted in a project led by Aardsma. I found it relevant because of material in the introduction, not the report on the radiocarbon study itself.

The other article (dated 1995) seems to me to qualify as a secondary source. If you disagree with my judgment on this, please explain why. Otherwise, if you concur, is there any other reason why it should not be cited? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: I would appreciate it, and hope that it will help you understand how we work, if you take ""We can't accept so-and-so as a reliable source, because he is a creationist, and a creationist has to believe that the Bible is literally true, regardless of what might be concluded by others, based on their interpretation of available physical evidence." Should this count as an ad hominem argument? Or suppose the reason were simply, "He has no relevant qualifications," or "He lacks academic credentials in a relevant field." Same thing or not? Is it really up to us to vet people by judging their worldview or qualifications? If so, please point me to the applicable Wikipedia policy or guidance." to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. And this: "an unwillingness to give honest answers to challenging questions about claims and ideas (not people). Can ad hominem nonsense ever be helpful?" seems to me to be a criticism of me and shows a failure to assume good faith. You are extremely new here and getting some input from other experienced editors besides those replying to you on this particular page will I hope help you. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the suggestion. Should anyone over at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources be expected to study the lengthy context of our discussion here? If not, I think it makes more sense to stick with Hob Gadling, who is already working with me toward a reasonable resolution of the issue covered in this section.

I protest that I have always assumed good faith here. As the policy states, "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." Can you find any comment here where I attributed anyone's action to malice?

Concerning your list of quotes related to what I called "ad hominem nonsense," you should not interpret any of them as criticism or an accusation aimed at you personally. My true intent should be clear from a study of their context, which you understandably omitted. (As Hob Gadling pointed out, I talk too much.) To keep this short, take just the longest quote, for example. I wanted you to be the judge and tried to "the best of [my] ability to explain and resolve the problem, ... and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind."WP:AGF

You can always ignore my questions, whether challenging or not, of course. No problem. Not even an explanation is required. You owe me nothing. I still appreciate your patience and all of your attempts to help me. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We will explain patiently the WP:RULES to any newbie who is willing to learn. This requires willingness to learn, which in its turn requires that some powerful bias does not prevent the newbie from learning our rules which go contrary of his/her beliefs. If the newbie has opinions which go contrary to the purpose of writing a WP:MAINSTREAM secular encyclopedia, the newbie should keep such opinions to himself/herself. Secular does not means atheist, it means that the clergy does not have by default the upper hand in all matters of scholarship. A Christian can gladly contribute to our encyclopedia as long as he/she recognizes that Christianity is a subjective belief and that encyclopedias work with information that can be objectively assessed, like mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. Yes, we're biased for academic learning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for your latest contribution to our discussion. How is it relevant? I am a newbie, all right, but have I said anything here that suggests I might be unwilling to learn Wikipedia rules, guidance, and policy? I have asked plenty of questions to learn or understand, not to protest and certainly not to resist learning. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack, more like a word of advice, a suggestion to take heed from the more experienced editors. How to get the WP:CLUE: I suggest editing non-controversial articles in order to see how WP:RS and WP:VER work in practice. Wikipedia is all about appeals to authority, so we have to be pretty sure that we WP:CITE the foremost views among scientists/scholars. That leaves out people with lesser credentials or primary scientific studies. Also, papers by creationists and "biblical archaeologists" who write apologetic articles are seen as subpar sources. Sometimes they do pass through peer-review in bona fide journals. But WP:USEBYOTHERS says how much worth they are. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for your patience and for a reply that is easier to understand, even though some mystery remains. Right, mysterious comments are not necessarily veiled attacks. Questions intended to clarify them do not necessarily imply stubbornness. I assume you believe that your comments are all relevant, intended to help me overcome a perceived real weakness as a new editor.

Can you explain why the first articles I edited should be considered controversial? I understand that controversy comes in various degrees of heat and that any attempt to present creationism as a mainstream POV would be highly controversial on any talk page. As Dimadick explained above (17:02, 12 May), I "specifically suggested a source concerning the historicity of the Book of Joshua," but I have "not suggested adding any defense of Creationism in this article." Can you explain why there has been so much talk here about creationism anyway, beginning with the very first comment in this section? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is because we have WP:RULES like WP:FRINGE and we consider Aardsma as fringe. He is a creationist, thus fringe. Creationists have a reputation of playing fast and loose with scientific facts, that's why he cannot be WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for continuing our discussion, but the mystery highlighted in my previous reply has only deepened. You have brought us back to a point that Doug Weller and I reached in a different thread. Hopefully, the fog will eventually lift, or this will not prove to be a dead end on a path that once seemed to be leading to an improvement.

You told me earlier, "Wikipedia is all about appeals to authority." Isn't such an appeal equivalent to an argument from authority? If so, I think it is widely regarded as at least a risky way to establish the truth, even if it is not necessarily a fallacy. Nevertheless, I have no problem with this aspect of Wikipedia policy. It actually makes sense to me in the context of an encyclopedia.

Now what about the idea that a person (not a claim or idea) "is fringe," so nothing written by this person, regardless of the publisher, should be accepted here as a reliable source? (Please correct me, if I misunderstood your point.) How is this logic or policy different from a fallacious ad hominem argument? Wikipedia policies and guidelines are supposed to be "applied with reason and common sense." If we are dealing here with a real example of ad hominem reasoning, I don't understand how it can be consistent with this guidance. Does any policy, perhaps one I have not yet seen, actually encourage ad hominem reasoning?

If what you just told me is consistent with official policy here, I think it means that editors must be responsible for directly vetting each author of a cited journal article, perhaps in addition to the journal itself. This policy could be problematic. Let me explain why.

Suppose it is clear that an author was a creationist in 1995, because at that time he was affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research. Is there a "once a creationist, always a creationist" rule? If not, someone who was once a creationist might become eligible to be a reliable source later, provided he is no longer a creationist, right? But how is an editor supposed to know or find out? You might have a litmus test but no litmus paper available to run it. In general, aren't editors better equipped to vet journals than authors? If so, maybe Wikipedians should rely on established experts in their field to vet the authors.

Please clarify how you think this works (or should work) in practice. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You engage into too much sophistry. Wikipedia is not the scientific community, not a university and not a research institute. So, Wikipedia does not operate by logical reasoning and scientific method, but it merely tells its readers what WP:MAINSTREAM scientists have already told elsewhere. See, WP:FRINGE is not WP:MAINSTREAM. WP:RS says that sources have to be reliable and a category of people reputed for playing fast and loose with the facts are WP:REDFLAG, therefore their writings are not reliable unless extraordinary evidence is provided, i.e. WP:USEBYOTHERS, or they are used to verify their own personal viewpoints, used with attribution and clearly told that they are far outside of WP:RS/AC. To cut the long story short: if it is good enough for Ivy Plus, it is good enough for Wikipedia. We are not in the business of second guessing Ivy Plus. If from Ivy Plus to US state universities every full professor toes the line, we also toe their line.

Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.

Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar; Wikipedia is not the venue for revising scientific opinion.

Wikipedia is a place where we kowtow to the academic mainstream. If you don't like doing that, you won't like it here. Wikipedia is not about you and your personal views, the sooner you learn it, the better. Wikipedia editors have the three rights stipulated at WP:FREE, for the rest they work as servants. If you are not an editor in order to serve Wikipedia, you are in the wrong place. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@ThomasJamesGodfrey: To sum up: here at Wikipedia we only render as science/scholarship views that have gotten substantial traction in the mainstream academia. Aardsma's view failed to do that and the WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that it is a mainstream academic view of sufficient traction. So, in respect to picking our WP:SOURCES we aren't democratic, but extremely snobby people. That's what WP:DUE all about: we select those sources according to their traction in the mainstream academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for having the patience to give me replies longer than my previous request for mystery clarification, but I am surprised by your opinion that I "engage into too much sophistry." I plead not guilty. Can you give me an example of the sophistry you have in mind? I assume your intention is to help me somehow, but at least this opinion was too vague to make much sense. Hod Gadling told me that I talk too much but then went on to give examples of irrelevant content in my comments. The good advice made sense. If I had said that you engage in sophistry, wouldn't you have wanted at least one clear example of it?

I am not here to make even one deceptive or fallacious argument, but I still have questions. I want mysteries clarified. Does Wikipedia have any policy that actually encourages ad hominem reasoning? If it does, are officially taboo qualities of a person listed? Where? Is creationist on the list? What about a creationist who believes in billions of years of history? Once an author gets branded with a taboo quality, does it stick for life? Is ad hominem reasoning consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines if these really are supposed to be "applied with reason and common sense"? I did not see answers to any of these questions in your reply but plenty of answers to questions I did not ask.

Some of your points may seem to border on innuendo, but I banish this thought, preferring to assume good faith instead.

The first sentence in your summary comment seems excellent, but the way you applied it in the following sentence only added more mysteries. It was about "Aardsma's view," but he has many views, as we all do. Which one in particular did you have in mind?

I accepted the reversion of my references to his work, because I had to admit to myself that the new text I had added to the article should be classified as original research. Even though it was a statement probably beyond dispute in mainstream academia, I could not find it stated directly in either cited article authored by Aardsma. No one else has suggested here either that the statement was due to Aardsma after all, or that it should not be considered "a mainstream academic view of sufficient traction."

If you can explain how your summary is relevant to my reverted edits, presumably the topic for this section, please do.

You owe me nothing, so I have no real complaint here, just unmet appeals for help. I suppose words are only silver, but silence is golden. On the other hand, maybe someone else will notice this discussion and find me understandable answers, even to my question about how (or whether) ad hominem reasoning fits into Wikipedia policy. I hope I have not wasted too much of your time. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not a fallacy to evaluate credentials, e.g. is he a full professor at a bona fide faculty? Is he susceptible to extreme bias? Is he in a category of people who play fast and loose with the facts? These are not ad hominem fallacies, but ways to evaluate the reliability of the author. WP:USEBYOTHERS is another way of evaluating reliability. WP:SCIRS has extra information, namely that we should avoid WP:PRIMARY scientific papers. Saying that he is WP:FRINGE is not a fallacy: creationism is fringe in the world of mainstream science. We simply don't do ourselves logic, philosophy, science, history, but we merely abstract the views of mainstream scientists/scholars which got traction in the mainstream academia. We are biased for mainstream science, we are biased against creationism. This won't change. Such approach is enshrined in WP:RULES and validated by practice all over Wikipedia. So it is a sophism of relevance that you find our approach to be an ad hominem: we are not Debatepedia or Scientificcommunitypedia, we simply have other rules than rational debate. The rules that apply to debate championships don't apply to Wikipedia. The rules that apply to scientific conferences don't apply to Wikipedia. Original thinking and personal opinions are banned from Wikipedia articles. If it is not a major view in mainstream science or mainstream history, we don't render it. If WP:CHOPSY would give it thumbs down, we don't render it. We have to separate the chaff from the grain and we do this by analyzing who's who in the academia. The articles about flat Earth, creationism, intelligent design are written from a mainstream scientific perspective, not from the perspective of their supporters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is in response to your post on the Leonora Piper talk page which has been reverted. Kazuba, I'm sorry to drop into the middle of this but I saw your post and it intrigued me. I think one of the greatest mysteries in the Internet is "What is Wikipedia for?" Quite a few people have tried to edit Wikipedia believing it to be the place to put your findings and your research so that others can see them. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia was built for. Others try and post what they have seen to be the "truth", again they will find themselves getting reverted because that's not a goal of Wikipedia. I guess the best way to describe it is "The Largest Collection In The World". Wikipedia collects all the other knowledge and puts it in one place so it can be referenced. You express above your love and talent for research - I thinks that's wonderful. We need people like you because we already have enough people like me (I can't find my socks on my feet). The issue would be putting that research on Wikipedia, so long as it's in a book or over-sighted article, fine. If not, you'll get push-back. Also, we have to present both sides of an argument. There's no way to quantify how famous a person is, so Wikipedia tries to stay away from determining who's more or less popular. To say that a thing was very popular is one thing, to compare it to other things that may also be popular is different. Even statements like the ones in the section on "Phinuit" are a bit too far. There are statements that refer to "Phinuit" as a doctor and that his French wasn't very good... That's intimating that "Phinuit" is a real person who could be a doctor and know French. Since there's never been any evidence proving this all we can do is refer to it as "the entity Mrs. Piper referred to as Phinuit". These are some of the restrictions placed on us by Wikipedia, they make it so the stuff we add to an article is concrete and cited to other sources so Wikipedia doesn't get in trouble for "making up stuff". I understand your indignation, I have an article about my father on this site and I can't add several things to it because they are not written down anywhere. I lived with the man for 15 years... was raised by him... ate his cooking... but I can't say "he had one brown eye and one green eye" because it's not written somewhere else. Please don't loose heart, try and stick around and if you need help presenting an argument, please leave a message on mytalk page and we'll work it out together. Padillah (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for continuing our discussion. The lengthy Padillah quote showed a high level of patience with Kazuba, who also admitted to talking too much, as I have. I appreciate your patience, too, but the explanation in that quote was evidently intended to address a violation of the policy against original research. I have not found a Wikipedia policy yet that seems to me to be nonsensical or unacceptable, and that one is no exception. It is the very reason I accepted reversion of my edits that cited Aardsma's work. Why did you think I still needed to see the quote?

I especially appreciate your attempt to focus on my questions about ad hominem reasoning. This is important, so in this comment, I want to respond point by point.

Right, it is not a fallacy to evaluate credentials such as "... is he a full professor at a bona fide faculty?" If Wikipedians are supposed to do this as we serve Wikipedia by improving articles, then I think there ought to be an official list of acceptable credentials. Is there one? If so, where is it? I have not yet come across it. Among the policies I have found is the idea that a Wikipedian should let established experts evaluate whatever credentials they find relevant and set the standards of acceptability that they find appropriate. Once a journal is accepted as mainstream, I think we are supposed to trust the judgment of its editors (and peer reviewers, if any).

You went on to list other questions that are far more subjective, such as "Is he susceptible to extreme bias? Is he in a category of people who play fast and loose with the facts?" Does it really make any sense for us to be asking these questions about an author whose work appears in a journal that has been accepted as mainstream? Asking such questions anyway, especially without Wikipedia guidance on standards to be used, strikes me as contrary to the call to apply rules "with reason and common sense." Wouldn't those questions put an editor on the road to fallacious ad hominem reasoning that could exclude material suitable for improving articles? I think the common sense thing to do is what you wrote later ("... we merely abstract the views of mainstream scientists/scholars which got traction in the mainstream academia"). Is there any official policy that says we should directly "evaluate the reliability of the author" rather than the publisher? You pointed me to WP:SCIRS, which only reinforced the impression I already had.

Now let's consider your claims, "Saying that he is WP:FRINGE is not a fallacy: creationism is fringe in the world of mainstream science." The referenced policy is all about fringe theories, not fringe people. People are not theories. Aardsma is not a theory. Creationism is a broad class of ideologies that appeals even to some people who believe in billions of years of history, nearly indistinguishable from what others believe who are clearly mainstream scholars. Creationism is certainly not a person. If we are going to make any progress in clarifying this issue, we need to keep the distinction between people and ideas crystal clear. Branding a scholar as fringe because of a belief that has nothing to do with any claim or idea proposed for mention in an article looks to me like an example of fallacious ad hominem reasoning. What is the difference here?

On your statement, "We are biased for mainstream science, we are biased against creationism," I realize that practically everyone here is biased, so I have not complained about bias, though we should all embrace the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy. However, the article on the Book of Joshua should have nothing to do with science in the normal sense of the word. It is about history. I still maintain that the distinction between science and history is important and should not be blurred.

Right, let's reject the idea that the rules for debate championships apply to Wikipedia editing, but as we seek to clarify practical questions about policy, let's be reasonable. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, if no other reliable secondary or tertiary sources reflect the ideas of the suggested primary source positively, the idea can be considered undue for the article, possibly also fringe. In both cases Wikipedia should not include it, since it must only summarize the most important points according to mainstream academia. Consensus is also important and it is obvious that none exists to use that source. This article talk page is neither a forum for lengthy discussions about the topic, nor about debating critical thinking and fallacies. Please attempt to remain on topic while keeping posts concise. Since this source cannot currently be used, if you have better sources to cite please provide them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ThomasJamesGodfrey: First, there are essays like WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS which address avoiding WP:PRIMARY sources. These essays aren't policies or guidelines, nevertheless it is wise to follow them. The question of "peer-reviewed, thus reliable" has been approached at Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology (it does say "biology", but you get the idea). Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of citations from peer-reviewed papers. As Rick Roderick said, only madmen believe that all opinions would be equal (see WP:ABIAS for the quote). So, yes, what you call an ad hominem isn't a fallacy in respect to our practice. If we cease to evaluate reputation and credentials Wikipedia would go to the dogs in several months. WP:RSN is the place to be when reliability is questioned. Quoting the letter of WP:RULES without understanding their spirit is called WP:Wikilawyering (believe me, it's bad). In order to understand their spirit, you have to practice editing in less controversial topics and build editing experience. When many experienced editors tell you something it is better to accept what they say without protest. Editing Wikipedia requires that editors abide by collective decisions, see WP:CONSENSUS. I have lost a dispute when I thought that WP:RULES were on my side, but I got over it, there are many articles to edit instead of nitpicking a formal mistake.

Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: We aren’t democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we’re actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing.

— Jimmy Wales, The Encyclopedist’s Lair

According to wikt:ἴδιος, the word meant separate, distinct, private, non-public, i.e. someone who does not fit in the community. Some explanations are better taken at face value. Repeatedly asking "Why?" exasperates people. Our view is that Aardsma does not have a high reputation and that his reputation is tainted by being a creationist. Creationism is usually defined as a rejection of evolution, and we see those who reject it as embracing pseudoscience. Otherwise I would also be a creationist, the term "deistic evolutionist" is however more accurate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, thanks very much for your comment. Of course this is the wrong place for general discussions about how to determine what is a reliable source. I asked User:ThomasJamesGodrey to go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (not RSN0 for his general issues but he unfortunately refused. @Tgerogescu:, do you agree that he should take general issues there? And if he's not happy with what we say here about a specific source, RSN. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC) @PaleoNeonate: sorry, typo with my ping and failure to preview, self-trout. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yup, I told him that WP:RSN is the place for discussing the reliability (of a source). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This section is not for "general discussions about how to determine what is a reliable source." It is for community discussion of your quite specific original claim ("Gerald Aardsma is not a reliable source"), which I dispute. This section has grown inordinately long, not only because I talk too much, but also because points not in dispute or irrelevant to our topic were covered anyway. I think it is time for me to thank editors who participated, summarize the community consensus as registered here, allow past participants (and possible newly interested editors) an opportunity to review and correct any possible misunderstanding, and then consider this specific topic closed but available for future reference.

I thank the following participants for the time they spent here and for their desire to help: Bloodofox, Dimadick, Doug Weller, Guy Macon, Hob Gadling, PaleoNeonate, and Tgeorgescu. I suspect the local community is actually much larger, but anyone who fails to participate in this discussion for any reason is like someone who fails to vote on or by Election Day.

Consensus as Understood by ThomasJamesGodfrey: The community concurs with Doug Weller that Gerald Aardsma is not a reliable source because he is a creationist. The reason was perhaps best clarified and summarized by Tgeorgescu, who wrote (12:01, 17 May 2019), "Our view is that Aardsma does not have a high reputation and that his reputation is tainted by being a creationist. Creationism is usually defined as a rejection of evolution, and we see those who reject it as embracing pseudoscience."

Dimadick wrote (17:56, 10 May), "Based on his self-description, he has no relevant qualifications: [list of Aardsma’s academic degrees]." This comment and my response ultimately had no impact on the community consensus.

Guy Macon submitted a substantial defense of the reason (10:57, 11 May), I challenged it (14:38, 11 May), and my challenge was left standing.

Dimadick also wrote (17:02, 12 May), "The Book of Joshua is not exactly a hot topic in evolution and creation debates, since it does not feature claims concerning the origin of life on Earth. User:ThomasJamesGodfrey has specifically suggested a source concerning the historicity of the Book of Joshua, he has not suggested adding any defense of Creationism in this article. A debate in that direction would be out of topic." This comment led to some discussion but ultimately had no impact on the consensus.

As recommended, I went to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for help with resolution. A notice there says, "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." As far as the local community consensus is concerned, context in this case is irrelevant. I have agreed that my edit was properly reverted because of an issue with WP:NOR, so no proposed context remains on the table. The topic for this section is just whether Gerald Aardsma should ever be considered a reliable source at all, regardless of context or the publisher of his work.

Any editor who would like to use Aardsma as a source in a future edit might want to consider challenging the current community consensus. Wikipedia guidance clearly indicates that claims, ideas, or theories can be considered fringe (WP:FRINGE), but I have not yet found where it indicates that a person or author can also be considered fringe. See the essay with a section entitled, "Where WP:FRINGE is abused", for ideas for a challenge, especially the claim that "Opponents to reliable sources will often argue that their opponents reliable sources are FRINGE because they spread false information or have a viewpoint which is not mainstream." One should also consider WP:CON, especially the part that says, "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." This is merely my opinion, but I feel that my concerns were proper but not properly taken into account. Finally, WP:IAR may also be relevant. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• "context in this case is irrelevant"--wut? Drmies (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Your surprise is evidently not unique. See the longer Dimadick quote above and the late pushback from both PaleoNeonate and Dimadick below. I know about general guidance for Wikipedians on what should be accepted as a reliable source and even a place for discussion of "questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Do you know of any Wikipedia encouragement to reject a person as a source without regard to context or publisher, that is, for a purely ad hominem reason? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ThomasJamesGodfrey I have no idea what you're going on about. I am just surprised that someone would say "context is irrelevant", which is patently false in just about every real-world situation. But have fun here. You've added almost 70k to this page. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• The community concurs with Doug Weller that Gerald Aardsma is not a reliable source because he is a creationist. Although this may seem equivalent, someone could be a creationist while having written notable material with enough momentum to be covered by third party scholars and even tertiary sources like other encyclopedias. In this case Wikipedia would likely cover it while not needing to rely on such a primary source alone. —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"or they are used to verify their own personal viewpoints" Actually that would support ThomasJamesGodfrey's suggested addition. The suggested text concerns Aardsma's viewpoint that the narrative in the Book of Joshua can not be placed in the 2nd millennium BC. Though it is unclear to me whether he suggests placing the narrative's setting within the 1st millennium BC or within a previous millennium. Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Thanks for making this point, but my original edit has been withdrawn because of the WP:NOR issue, as explained above. The reverted statement was intentionally no more specific than necessary. If I had tried to cover Aardsma's alternative proposal even briefly, I think I would have triggered legitimate complaints about a violation of WP:UNDUE. Instead, I proposed a statement that should be beyond dispute, regardless of worldview or ideological differences. As you noted, it did not push any form of creationism. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects)." Hmmm. Tgeorgescu, our articles and contents are not limited to scientific topics. We cover numerous arts-literated articles, military history, crimes, etc. And our Reliable Source policy does not reject press sources at all:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." Dimadick (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"If it does, are officially taboo qualities of a person listed? Where? Is creationist on the list?" I already knew that you were a relatively recent editor, but you never read through Wikipedia:Fringe theories, a major content guideline?:

• "Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic." Dimadick (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: To answer your question for me, yes, I have read the content guideline in WP:FRINGE. It was called to my attention more than once earlier. Does it officially recognize the concept of a fringe person, someone whose work should not be cited regardless of context or publisher? I think it is all about ideas or theories. By officially taboo qualities, I meant I was looking for an official list of personal beliefs or attributes that could be used as a valid reason for unconditionally rejecting a person or author as a reliable source. So far, I have not seen any such list. I suspect that editors in the majority behind the current local consensus share a private or undisclosed list, but I am not convinced that it necessarily advances our goal of maintaining great articles. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

My last two comments provided clues as to why the "ad hominem attack" and "fringe person" arguments are unfounded (and Dimadick's quotes were excellent), but we're still running in circles... I am not convinced that it necessarily advances our goal of maintaining great articles I would like to point to WP:HERE and to suggest to move on (this may include using WP:RSN, but there are many useful things one can do to improve the encyclopedia (an example), if that is a concern). —PaleoNeonate – 01:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Wood commented on Aardsma needs to be seen in its context (I agree with Drmies, context is always important and should not be ignored). The context is a website called Biblia.work/Sermons and Biblical stuides[5] which I note offers me a free Messianic Bible. It does not show that Wood has been the subject of scholarly discussion, anymore than his articles in the conference proceedings do. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages exist solely to discuss the article

WP:Talk:"he purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject." The section above is getting well away from that. In fact I'm wondering if it should be hatted as it is so large and then we should all return to discussing the article. There are other venues for these larger questions, eg the talk pages of WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Those are where community discussions on such issues are held. Or possibly WP:FTN]]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 22:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a discussion about a change. The suggested change is adding this to the article:

• "However, scholarly doubts about the historicity of Joshua and speculation about its origin depend on a contested belief that relevant evidence should be dated to the second millennium BCE."

Basically, a question about the actual setting of the Book. Dimadick (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: it was at one point, but [User:ThomasJamesGodfrey]] stated in the section above that "The topic for this section is just whether Gerald Aardsma should ever be considered a reliable source at all, regardless of context or the publisher of his work." That clearly is not something that should be discussed on any article talk page. He also made the bad faith assertion " I suspect that editors in the majority behind the current local consensus share a private or undisclosed list," Doug Weller talk 10:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Then the WP:BURDEN is upon him who wants such change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The doubt is that of Mr Ardsma, whose theory is that the entire history of the Near East is out by a thousand years because somebody at some point dropped a numeral from the text of 1 Kings 6:1, thus giving us 480 years between the Exodus and the commencement of Solomon's temple rather than 1,480. Mr Ardsma is entitled to his opinion, but it seems to be shared by absolutely nobody. That it amounts to a contested belief would seem to be a stretch.PiCo (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Is the last sentence of your comment (10:24, 19 May) an equally bad faith assertion? I hope not. I actually have nothing against anyone who has a private or undisclosed list. No one can possibly state in writing every private consideration behind a judgment. I assume good faith on the part of everyone here, but we should all deal with inevitable misunderstandings somehow, right? I apologize if my comment was misunderstood as an indication of bad faith.

On the substance of your appeal for moving this section, remember that you originally wanted to put it here, because it was the best place for local discussion of your opposition to my Book of Joshua edits. Did this purpose ever become irrelevant? If so, there must have been other attempts besides mine to cite Aardsma, right? Do you know of any?

This might be the best talk page for our discussion if Wikipedia has provided no other place to discuss a general call to censor or exclude all works of a person (as opposed to a claim, idea, or theory considered fringe), regardless of context. However, if you can find such a place, by all means, let's think about using it. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo: Thanks for summarizing Aardsma's theory in a few words, but we should all understand that the text of my reverted edit did not describe it at all. If I had tried to do that, it could be considered a violation of WP:UNDUE.

I would like to clarify one part of your summary to avoid possible future confusion. You said, "... the entire history of the Near East ...," but Aardsma's theory really applies to history only before approximately the first millennium BCE.

Aardsma is entitled to his opinion, as you admitted, but his missing millennium theory is much more than a mere opinion, because he has found plenty of physical evidence to support it, and not just what he covered in the 1995 Radiocarbon article cited in my reverted edits.

Anyway, you raised a question that could be quite relevant on this talk page in the future. Who shares the idea that doubts about the historicity of Joshua could be based on a study of irrelevant evidence, dated even to the wrong millennium? Your not knowing about anyone (who shares it) is no proof that the correct answer is no one, right?

The section above on Gerald Aardsma is inordinately long, so I don't blame you for overlooking where I indirectly addressed this issue there. Please search (Ctrl-F) for much is quite to find the place in that section. You should get only one hit. Besides that, please consider also your section 7 above on Emmanuel Anati. It is already a good ten years old, but there you discussed a similar idea, also branded as fringe. Aardsma's date for the Exodus is about 2450 BCE. If even one person contests an idea, it has clearly been contested, but I suppose it is a matter of personal opinion what level of shared interest in a new idea justifies lifting it out of the fringe category. What is yours? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Aardsma has been simply plonked by the scientific/scholarly community, see Plonk (Usenet). We usually don't render the views of cranks, except in articles dedicated to WP:FRINGE topics, e.g. flat Earth. Do read WP:RGW and seek other venues for promoting Aardsma's view. Wikipedia isn't here for such WP:ADVOCACY. Sealioning is disrespectful. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: If you concluded that I came here seeking a venue "for promoting Aardsma's view" (whatever that may be), you must be puzzled why I have said so little here about ideas in the articles I cited. I can explain. PiCo summarized Aardsma's missing millennium theory. I saw a couple of points that needed clarification, addressed them, and then promptly turned to a related "question that could be quite relevant on this talk page in the future."

The discussion about Aardsma on this talk page has mostly been about the opinion that Aardsma cannot be a reliable source, regardless of context, because he embraces a form of creationism, leaving consideration of his claims and ideas related to Joshua totally irrelevant. Nevertheless, when he opened the section above this one, Doug Weller quoted the conclusion of a 1993 article highly critical of Aardsma's missing millennium theory. I did add a few words in defense of it there, but if I were here "promoting Aardsma's view," I certainly missed a great opportunity to expatiate on it, right?

I also noted that the detailed critique was evidence of serious interest in Aardsma's theory in the scholarly community. If Aardsma really is a crank, how do we explain the fact that he had two of his articles published in Radiocarbon and rated a detailed critique, written by Bryant G. Wood, about whom Wikipedia has an article? Do you suppose Wood and seven Radiocarbon editors are all cranks too? (The BLP article describes Wood as a young earth creationist.)

Not counting my reply to PiCo this morning and the brief comment about the Wood critique earlier, what else have I ever said here to describe a POV, let alone promote it? It's not about me. It's not about Aardsma. It's about improving the article on the Book of Joshua. Let's focus on ideas or content, not people, and work collaboratively to craft improvements (WP:USTHEM).

Thanks for your references to Wikipedia guidance, which is interesting, all right, but not necessarily applicable in this case. For example, the WP:RGW section says, "... we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion." Okay, great, but this guidance is irrelevant in any case where a person and his ideas are totally banned from consideration on POV or ideological grounds alone.

I had hoped that we were done with this discussion, but it keeps dragging on. Maybe it is partly my fault for joining in, but does it matter who is at fault? I assume you agree with my summary of the local community consensus. If so, let's move on to constructive ideas and wrap this up well. ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Aardsma's date for the exodus is irrelevant - the idea that there ever was an exodus is fringe in itself. So also is the idea that the world was created suddenly in 4004 BC - Aardsma's proposal would, of course, push that back to 5004 BCE, but that idea is unlikely to find much support. (If Aardsma assumes that the exodus and Lot are real, then he has to take the Creation as well). PiCo (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@PiCo: I gave Aardsma's proposed Exodus date only to link his idea with Anati's. I have no plan to cover either man's Exodus theory, and earlier history would be even less relevant here, but it still might make sense to mention the idea that doubts about the historicity of Joshua depend on acceptance of a possibly incorrect biblical chronology, so the evidence considered may be irrelevant. Do you consider this idea controversial? ThomasJamesGodfrey (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you're well off-topic. The point made to you by multiple editors is that Aardsma's idea of a missing thousand years isn't controversial, it simply doesn't exist in serious scholarly circles. On the biblical chronology, you might like to look at the article Biblical chronology, and read some of the books in the bibliography there. (I do strongly urge you to read the mainstream literature on a;ll bible-related topics).PiCo (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Aardsma's chronology and the Exodus

"Aardsma's date for the Exodus is about 2450 BCE." Which would place the Exodus in the reign of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt. Curiously there is an old legend about an episode of attempted infanticide in the transition from the 4th to the 5th dynasty:

• "How Pharaoh Userkaf founded this dynasty is not known for certain. The Papyrus Westcar, which was written during the Middle Kingdom, tells a story of how king Khufu of Dynasty IV was given a prophecy that triplets born to the wife of the priest of Ra in Sakhbu would overthrow him and his heirs, and how he attempted to put these children – named Userkaf, Sahure, and Neferirkare – to death; however in recent years, scholars have recognized this story to be at best a legend and admit their ignorance over how the transition from one dynasty to another transpired."
• Userkaf may have received tribute from Canaan, though there are few details in surviving annals: "South of Egypt, Userkaf launched a military expedition into Nubia, while the Old Kingdom annals record that he received tribute from a region that is either the Eastern Desert or Canaan in the form of a workforce of one chieftain and 70 foreigners (likely women), as well as 303 "pacified rebels" destined to work on Userkaf's pyramid. These might have been prisoners from another military expedition to the east of Egypt or rebels exiled from Egypt prior to Userkaf's second year on the throne and now willing to reintegrate into Egyptian society. According to the Egyptologist Hartwig Altenmüller these people might have been punished following dynastic struggles connected with the end of the Fourth Dynasty." Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Dimadick, that is abstruse for me, but I'm assuming it's related to Aardsma's theories, since you mention him (maybe not?). Everybody please see my close of the section below. ThomasJamesGodfrey has promised to stop discussing Aardsma's theories, and I hope everybody else will too. Please remember the header of this section. If anybody really wants to discuss Aardsma some more, perhaps you could take it to TJG's talkpage . Bishonen | talk 15:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC).

I was checking where Aardsma placed the Exodus. The narrative in the Book of Exodus does start with infanticide. Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I gave this discussion a new thread because it's not on-topic for the Book of Joshua, but it's interesting. Aardsma's thesis is that a number (a single word meaning "thousand" was inadvertantly dropped from the text of 1 Kings 6:1, which says that Solomon began construction of the Temple 480 years after the Israelites left Egypt - so the exodus was 1480 years earlier than that. Solomon's cornerstone was laid in the fourth year of his reign, but when was that? Aardsma takes the bible literally in some areas, non-literally in others, and the Biblical chronology is one of the things he does not take literally. The chronology says that the Temple was destroyed 430 years after its foundation (add the 50 years of the Babylonian exile and you get another 480 years). The destruction is one event that can be dated precisely - 586 BC. Count back 430 years and you arrive at 1016 BC. (This is not the date given by people like Thiele, but it is the date in the Bible). So 480 before that is 2496. But as I said, Aardsma is not respecting the Biblical text - the chronology is made up of significvant numbers, and this insistence on 480 is meaningful - 480 from Exodus to Temple, 480 from Temple to end of exile - and if you count back into time from the Exodus, it's another 480 to the entry into Egypt (the 400 years promised in Genesis for the enslavement, plus the 80 years of Moses's life up to the moment of the exit from Egypt). Ok, this is pretty nerdy, but it's useful to be reminded that the Bible isn't trying to record history. PiCo (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick, Bishonen, and PiCo: I agree that it's interesting. But forums are for interesting, article talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the article. I'm pretty sure there's a consensus that Aardsma is not a reliable source, and sections like this just encourage offtopic discussions. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

References

The status of Aarsdma's contributions in Radiocarbon (journal)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:ThomasJamesGodfrey wrote " If Aardsma really is a crank, how do we explain the fact that he had two of his articles published in Radiocarbon and rated a detailed critique, written by Bryant G. Wood, about whom Wikipedia has an article? Do you suppose Wood and seven Radiocarbon editors are all cranks too?". I have explained this before. The editors did not vet or have reviewed (submissions require at least one reviewer who is an expert in the field). The journal routinely published "the triennial International Radiocarbon Conference proceedings." His papers were simply part of the proceedings and were not peer reviewed. They should not be treated as though they were or that the editors accepted them. Doug Weller talk 08:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not want to reopen this and do not expect a response to this, which is a correction of what I wrote above. I appreciate the pointer given me to what TJG said and will explain there the error I and TJG made about the editors. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Entry into the land and conquest (chapters 2-12)

Hello! I noticed that the subsection “Entry into the land and conquest (chapters 2-12)” is missing information about Rahab, the woman who helped the spies sent by Joshua and in turn enabled the Israelites to enter into the land. I intend to add details about the spies’ interaction with Rahab before the rest of the Israelites’ entered, as well as information about the prior reputation of the Israelites’ in the area. I will be using the source “Reading the Women of the Bible” by Tikva Frymer-Kensky, who was a Yale-educated author, professor, and winner of a National Jewish Book Award for Women’s Studies. I will probably be adding about 200 words. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Wendy072310 (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I think walls of Jericho should be mentioned in historicity.

I just think that should be thrown out there because many sources I have seen have mentioned it. But the walls show it was destroyed at different times. I can’t find sources to cite for these thought so can someone find sources to cite. CycoMa (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:MAINSTREAM contemporary archaeology agrees that Kenyon was right in respect to the Book of Joshua and Jericho. It is highly unlikely that this academic consensus will change any time soon. Here at Wikipedia we simply kowtow to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP and disregard WP:FRINGE. The Bible has been proven wrong on the walls of Jericho, and this is the end of the story. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent revert

@GoogleMeNowPlease: Personally I find it instructive to know how Albright regarded the problem, but I agree with Achar Sva that Albright's POV is moot in contemporary WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I mean it cannot be taught as fact at WP:CHOPSY and this says a lot: only true believers cling to the historicity of the Book of Joshua, for the rest of non-fundamentalist, non-evangelically-conservative world the issue had been settled. See e.g.:

Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel's origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.

— Peter Enns.

• Enns, Peter (January 10, 2013). "3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship". {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. And, if you ask me, I'd rather choose for too much information rather than too few information. Redundancy is a quality, pedagogically speaking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

References

I mean I agree that Alright's views are not taught today and are contraricted by recent evidence, but I think we need to keep this discussion on jow historicity developed. While Albright may not be accurate, the Neo-albright school is actually taken pretty seriously and i don't know why we should not mention this discussion of histocity. As I said, on a personal level, I know that the historicity of Joshua is contradicted by more recent research GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

GoogleMeNowPlease, please be gentlev with a new member. If other editors want the section to take the form of a survey of literature with a bias towards a historical approach, I can certainly accommodate that. But we can't overbalance the entire article with half of it on historicity. Achar Sva (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I am not opposed to taking it out, if it is done with consensus... But I would still appreciate at least a minor survey of Albright's views, for the sake of history of how views developed regarding Joshua GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I agree with both sides. Yes, it was interesting to read that about Albright, and no, it is no longer WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I still do not know if I feel comfortable with such large sections suddenly being removed. We can consider shortening them, but this sort of large scale removal simply is not usually acceptable. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I do not gladly delete facts from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What tends to happen on Wikipedia is that successive editors add and add and add to their favourite bits - in the case of biblicalm articles, to summaries of the stories and to the question of historicity. This ends up with those two sections grossly overinflated, which is what has happened here. When I wrote this article, many years ago, it was much more balanced. Not that I claim to own it, but I've watched this happening. Achar Sva (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 @Achar Sva: As I have told you before, in Wikipedia, when addressing Biblical scholarship, we have a tradition of presenting the range of views, typically ranging from maximalist views to minimalist views, then explaining where the scholarship generally leans, why and also presenting notable scholars that have challenged the developing consensus. I realize that this it NOT always possible. I understand that certain theories, even when widely believed are so fringe that we cannot entertain them as valid scholarship. I respect the fact that we cannot present Young Earth Creationism as a valid view in Biblical archaeology and that we cannot present Christ mythicism as valid New Testament scholarship, however, more often than not, we *can* present the range of views. In other words, your vision of Wikipedia which discusses the Bible as a disproven myth, Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, and anyone who dares disagree as an "ultra-conservative" loon, is totally at odds with my vision of Wikipedia. Hope that clears this up. I am open to coming to a compromise, but remember, compromise must be coming from both sides... It should not be me compromising while you disregard any necessity for discussion with others. God bless GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Rahab

It is stated in the book that Rahab joined the Israelites "where she lives to this day". That is a very strong indication that it was written in her lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.242.66 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You do not make the call, I do not make the call, WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholars make the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

... sure, just like Acts

"The book resembles the Acts of the Apostles in the number and variety of historical incidents it records and in its many references to persons and places." The book also resembles War and Peace in the number and variety of historical incidents it records blah blah blah. This is someone who's been taught that a reference to the New Testament is always appropriate and Raises the General Tone... Fatuous. --Wetman 07:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the reference does not seem fitting in that location. However, the statement is not inaccurate, only somewhat non-sequitur. As an "ignorant religionist" I take seriously what these articles portray about the Bible; I guess I can be impertinent if you can be arrogant. In any event, remove the sentence if you like... TTWSYF

I have taken the liberty of removing this opinion. This may be related to vexing comments that have since appeared on my talk page. Zosodada 22:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley

I see HBH is a primary source for this article, however I should mention -- and I hope this doesn't offend anyone -- that Mr. Halley was unabashedly non-neutral in his endeavors with this text. He believed that everyone should read the Bible every day, and his intended readership were liturgical "Bible readers" of the early 20th century. This *is* a source, but is is not a neutral (or current) one. I see that the text I've deleted on non-WP:NPOVgrounds is by TTWSYF, so apologies to TTWSYF in advance. --

THis project has become tedious to the extreme. Anyone attempting to add any information or modifications sees their additions deleted out of hand. What a waste of time.

I've reinstated previous sections on the ethical problem of war in Joshua, but added dissenting views and placed everything in what I hope is NPOV language. If anyone still has problems, feel free to edit or to add additional information to make it more NPOV. However, I don't think it is justifiable to remove the section altogether, as this is a serious issue that people studying the Joshua need to deal with, whatever the conclusions they reach may be. honeydew 10:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the sections are valuable and well-balanced after your treatment. Have a small pat on the back, honeydew. Dizzley (Peter H) 11:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excavations of Canaanite cities

I've added some info on the excavations of Canaanite cities and what they show about the Israelite invasion. I'm not sure what to write about the city of Jericho because the evidence is vague. There was a Canaanite city in the late bronze age and it was destroyed the same time as other canaanite cities. However, the city was not very large and no traces of walls from that period were found. It's possible that the rubble of the walls was all taken away to build something else later. Should I even mention it? --Cypherx 05:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)