Talk:Bryant G. Wood

Citation needed
Why are you removing the citation needed tag? It's standard that when a statement like that is made to cite sources. Where are you getting your information? Mar Komus (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Mar Komus Any chance you could be more specific? And not address an anonymous "you"? Why should I have to look at the history myself to figure out what you are referring to? Doug Weller  talk 06:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Doug Weller Sorry 'bout that. Someone chimed in with a citation for the opening paragraph. I'll be more specific in the future. Mar Komus (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, it was too difficult to click upon WP:CITELEAD and read what it says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Livingston
I would prefer that a better source be used, but the current https://biblearchaeology.org/56-support/ministry-and-mission-of-abr/2688-a-history-of-abr-its-founders-and-associates-19691994 does stress he's a creationist, it's also important for the context of the claim. — Paleo Neonate  – 23:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

False balance
On Wikipedia we consider text like this as presenting a false balance (WP:GEVAL) by presenting all views as equally informed or valid. — Paleo Neonate  – 23:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The original statement, "This identification has not gained acceptance" is so broad that it cannot be considered factual. Even something like "has not gained widespread acceptance" would be more accurate. There are certainly published archaeologists and other academics who either accept it or do not reject it out of hand. In fact, it is the prevailing view among the minority who accept a 15th century date for the Exodus. At a minimum, the statement "has not gained acceptance" needs clarification in order to be considered factual.


 * As noted above, the reference to Livingston as a "creationist" in the context of his excavations it Khirbet Nisya is irrelevant to his findings there. What he believes about the origin of life does not affect the discovery (or lack thereof) of Late Bronze habitation at Khirbet Nisya. I don't see how referring to him in that context as a "creationist" is anything other than an attempt to smear his archaeological work there. It seems like a classic example of "poisoning the well." Niqmadu22 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Our house, our rules. In this case the WP:RULES say WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So how is Livingston's proposal that Khirbet Nisya might be Ai (which is the point of the sentence) related to his view on the origin of the earth? Why not point out his race or political leanings? Whats the connection between his work at Nisya and his view of origins? Niqmadu22 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's fundamental policy, see WP:PSCI: we have to tell the reader it's pseudoscience (or pseudohistory or pseudoscholarship). We don't believe in "anything goes (as long as it is written on paper)". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fundamental policy, see WP:PSCI: we have to tell the reader it's pseudoscience (or pseudohistory or pseudoscholarship). We don't believe in "anything goes (as long as it is written on paper)". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If anything, "creationist" is an understatement. David Livingston believed:
 * Everything known about prehistory before 5,000 years ago didn't happen.
 * Because a "Great Flood occurred ca. 2350 BC and everything before that time was destroyed"
 * Radiocarbon dating doesn't work.
 * All geology is wrong.
 * Historical linguistics? Also wrong.
 * Obviously that is relevant to anything he claims about the past. He's so far from a reliable source that he shouldn't be quoted in the article at all. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So why is that sentence even there? The view that Khirbet Nisya is Ai has not been picked up by any other scholarly sources; in fact I have not been able to find it in any secondary sources. Doesn't that qualify is fringe? And the source that is cited (from the ABR website) is not secondary or tertiary. Wouldn't it be better to remove the sentence entirely, since the view is fringe and it has no real source? Niqmadu22 (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't check the history, but presumably it was originally added to claim support by other people and that for context creationst was added. In any case, I agree with the above that it's just unnecessary.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)