Talk:Bryant G. Wood/Archive 1

Debate between Pico and Chronic2
For user Chronic2: I've now twice removed a large amount of material from you as being irrelevant and tendentious. As you're abviously wanting to have it in, I'll explain here why it's not proper to do so.

First, it's irrelevant because it's about disputes over Carbon-14 dating. This is an article about an archaeologist and his career, not about the details of C-14 dating. It might be relevant to the article on C-14 dating, but not here.

Second, it's tendentious because it's one-sided - it concentrates on those who r=feel the C-14 dates are wrong, without any attempt to give a balanced view. The result is original research:


 * If Bietak and the other Egyptologists are right, then radiocarbon dates taken from the approximate middle of the second millennium BC will consistently yield results that are from 100 to 150 years too early. This would mean that the radiocarbon dates cited above for Jericho City IV should be moved down that amount of time. Instead of supporting the Kenyon date of 1550 BC for the end of City IV, the adjusted radiocarbon dates would then support, within their probability of error, the Garstang/Wood dates of around 1400 BC.


 * Given the present unsettled state of this controversy over radiocarbon dates, it would seem that those who put their confidence in the C14 method will continue to favor 1550 BC for the destruction of Jericho, whereas those who follow the lead of Bietak and other Egyptologists should be open to the later date, in view of the fact that the required adjustments to C14 dating favors the Garstang/Wood chronology. Giving priority to the C14 dates and ignoring the caution expressed by Egyptologists in this matter would also seem to carry with it the necessity of advocating that all dates of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom should be moved back in time by 100 to 150 years.


 * 'Since the C14 dating controversy shows no sign of being settled soon to the satisfaction of all involved, it would seem that ultimately the question of the date of the destruction of Jericho should be discussed based on the more traditional stratigraphic studies that rely heavily on pottery types.''

The conclusions here are your own, and Wikipedia does not give the conclusions of editors. If you want to take this further, arbitration is to be the next step. PiCo (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear PiCo,

On 27 Sep 2007, you introduced into the Bryant Wood page the new section, "Jericho". In it, you brought up the work of Garstang and Kenyon, giving no proper citations. You stated that Garstang identified Jericho City IV with the Biblical account of Joshua, "and accordingly dated it to c. 1400 BC." No reference was given. My recent post (Aug 25) showed that your opinion that Gartstang derived this date from the Bible is not supportable from Garstang's own writings. If you quarrel with this, please give a proper citation, rather than just deleting my entries under some generality.

Your only citation for that initial entry that was apparently introduced to discredit Dr. Wood was to www.biblearachaeology.org. This is the web page of Gerald Aardsma, who is in no sense a recognized scholar in the field in which you are trying to establish your viewpoint by your frequent edits of Dr. Wood's page. Aardsma, for instance, dates the Exodus/Conquest to 2400 BC.

The problem with this is not just Aardsma's far-out scholarship; it is that by this kind of improper citation, you have established that you are beyond your depth in dealing with the chronological and archaeological issues that necessarily come up when discussing near eastern archaeologists such as Manfred Bietak and Bryant Wood. I would strongly urge that you therefore leave this field to those of us who are cognizant of the current scholarship and who have also published in this field in peer-reviewed publications.

You could have given much better citations to support your case, but your choice of Aardsma shows that you have not formed your opinions on what has been written in the proper scholarly venues. If you had done so, you never would have made this citation; you just seem to have found, perhaps by a Google search, someone who criticizes Bryant Wood. This is not the kind of scholarship that should go into a Wikipedia page. We are therefore getting, it seems, just you opinion, and opinion that has not been based on any concerned effort to understand current scholarship in this field.

Although you cited Aardsma's web page, presumably because it criticized Wood, you in two subsequent posts deleted from this article someone else's references to sites that were favorably disposed to Wood, saying in your comments, "deleting a link which is full of info which is simply wrong", and "deleting another unreliable link - christiananswers is not very good at facts". Is this consistent with your use of Aardsma? Would not any impartial observer say that you have a double standard?

After you made began the section about Jericho and C-14 dating, user MyOlmec added to your paragraph. He cited, giving the appropriate reference to a reputable source (something not found in a single one of your many edits of this page), evidence that was directly related to the issue you had brought up when you introduced the "Jericho" section. What was your response? Was it to cite another scholarly source so that users could make up their own minds by referring to the appropriate scholarship, or by evaluating a relevant quote that was taken from that scholarship? No, your response was to delete MyOlmec's entry claiming it was "garbled text."

Fortunately, MyOlmec, who from his user page apparently has the academic credentials to be a legitimate contributor to the discussion, was not intimidated and put his entry back in. His entry was entirely germane to the discussion that you yourself had introduced. If you had a genuine argument against what MyOlmec contributed, then why did you not produce it and supply a relevant citation?

Instead, I see here someone who is beyond his depth in the field of archaeology, which is just the subject that must be discussed in an article about Dr. Wood, because that is what he is, a world-renowned archaeologist. At the same time, I see someone who has a lot of experience with Wikipedia and who is very good at playing a game of finding some Wikipedia reason to exise an argument that does not agree with his opinions. MyOlmec, however, was not intimidated, and his informative entry remains in the page, waiting for a proper discussion of its merits rather than a ploy such as you attempted to use to get rid of it.

I feel your latest proposal above is of the same kind – a ploy by someone who is very good at manipulating the Wikipedia process in an attempt to get a Wikipedia editor on his or her side, or to just frustrate someone who is not as experienced as you obviously are in Wikipedia things.

If you appeal to an editor, you may win your case. You are very good at this. On my part, my very first Wikipedia update was done only six days ago. You surely realize you have an advantage here. You apparently are unable to discuss the issues by citing any scholarly work to support your view, so you resort to repeated edits with invalid reasons. I could give you some scholarly citations to support the opinion you have had without the trouble of consulting scholarship, but as I said before, becoming informed in this area is not your main interest – you had your opinion formed without being aware of what the current state of scholarship is, as evidenced by your deplorable single citation of Aardsma.

If you have a valid reference that would be of use to readers who want to learn about Dr. Wood, then give it. Give it to correct any problem that you see with my latest entries. But do not just think you might find sympathy from a Wikipedia editor to accomplish what your lack of knowledge in this field could not accomplish, so that what you cannot accomplish by proper scholarship can be accomplished by your admittedly considerable skills in playing the Wikipedia game. If you resort to this ploy again, you may very well find such sympathy with someone who has the same biases you do, but if you make such an appeal, I can only interpret as a implicit admission of your inability to support your opinions and obvious biases in an intellectully honest manner and the bankruptcy of your scholarship.

Regarding the specific item which you apparently are thinking of making your case about – you say that if someone draws an inference from the current C-14 debate and relates it to the question of the date of Jericho's fall, then that is offering a new opinion and new research, and so should be rejected according to Wikipedia guidelines. Now apply this to your own entry that said that C-14 data showed that Wood's date for Jericho was wrong. Wouldn't this also be thrown out by those same principles? Double standard again.

The current controversy of C-14 dating immediately bears on whether Dr. Wood's ideas are correct or not, and so the current state of scholarship in this matter is very germane to the Wikipedia article.

I would recommend then, that you stop your editing of this page until you become acquainted with the reputable scholarly sources that will qualify you to judge Dr. Wood's work. Your skills at Wikipedia are very good, so I assume you have the intellectual ability to investigate these matters. Then, after you have done this study, come back and join the discussion, or the discussion of any matters related to archaeology and ancient history. But I would request that you would have the wisdom in the meanwhile, until that is done, to leave this and other pages related to ancient history or archaeology alone. Then come back and make contributions based on the knowledge of real scholarship in this field. Which is definitely not Gerald Aardsma.

Best wishes for a better day, Chronic2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronic2 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -

Entry by Chronic2, 27 Aug 2008: In an entry of 7 Sep 07, 13:47, PiCo introduced a long section that was obviously intended to discredit Dr. Wood's scholarship. No proper citations were given, only a reference at the end to two Web pages of Gerald Aardsma, one of which is no longer available.

Some things need to be noted about PiCo's action in introducing this long section on Jericho and radiocarbon dating.

The first is the lack of a proper citation is given. PiCo pasted in information from Aardsma's web site, including a quote that Aardsma gave from Biblical Archaeology Review that said that "Wood was wrong on all four counts," but then did not go ahead and tell why Wood was wrong. Since PiCo had found someone who criticized Wood, he pasted this in, thinking it would sound negative enough to suit his purposes. This is deplorable, and that action itself should have disqualified PiCo from making any more contributions to this site or to any other Wikipedia site until he amended his ways. Also see my earlier remarks (25 Aug) about citing Aardsma as a source; this has served to show that PiCo had no knowledge of recent scholarship in matters of Biblical archaeology, but was merely searching for someone to support his already-formed opinion.

By his action on 27 Sep 2007, PiCo did something else that pertains directly to his statement, in his update of 27 Aug 2008, 07:34, in which he complains about "the irrelevancy and tendentious nature" of the text he was deleting. In September of last year, he had introduced the whole discussion about the dating of Jericho and then the C-14 data, with the aim of showing that Wood's date could not be correct. What was the purpose of this, except to show that Wood is wrong on fundamental archaeological matters? PiCo thought introducing these questions was entirely appropriate, and neither tendentious nor irrelevant, charges that he has repeatedly made when someone brought in new information – and documented it – relating to these same two questions. That is, in September 2007, PiCo thought that these issues were relevant to a Wikipedia page on Dr. Wood.

I agree with that. There is every reason, when setting up a page on a scientist or historian, to present information so that the reader can judge whether that person's ideas are correct or incorrect. The trouble was therefore not with the basic idea of introducing this information. It was the inadequate nature of the information ("Not a single one of [Wood's four] arguments can stand up to scrutiny" without any information for the reader on why these arguments are wrong) and the failure to document, because, again, he was just pasting in material from Aardsma, who himself did not properly document his statements.

At the top of this Discussion page is a template stating the Wikipedia policy: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced our poorly sourced must be removed immediately." If PiCo were an objective person, he would have deleted his own entry immediately.

The discussion of whether Wood's date for Jericho City IV has any scientific basis is therefore relevant to a discussion of Dr. Wood, the scholar, and has a place here just as similar material does in other Wikipedia pages devoted to scientists. If this is so, then it is just as appropriate to present material like PiCo's that cast doubt on that scholarship (even if PiCo's attempt in this regard should have been thrown out for the reasons mentioned above), as it is to present material that supports it. This is exactly what MyOlmec and others have done. MyOlmec, however, followed proper scholarly procedures and gave a proper citation for his entry, unlike PiCo who has never given a proper citation in any of his entries – this last fact should have ruled him out from having any right to edit this page long ago.

As explained in my entry of 25 Aug, PiCo's response to MyOlmec's entry was to delete it, with the explanation "Garbled text." (Was there some other previous explanation that got erased?) But MyOlmec's entry was up to Wikipedia standards; it was documented, it was germane, and it showed current scholarship. It is that kind of reference that should be entered in this page, not the improper poor scholarship (opinionating) of PiCo.

The discussion of C-14 dates and stratigraphic evidence is therefore entirely relevant to the present page, and it will not do for PiCo to keep labeling anything that does not agree with his opinion as "tendentious." Nor is it appropriate that, when someone brings in relevant and more current information on things like C-14 dating, a subject he himself introduced, that he labels this as irrelevant. That is not honest.

PiCo does not seem to be aware of a subject that every Near Eastern archaeologist is very aware of and has been aware of for the last decade of more, namely that there is a great disparity between C-14 dates for ancient Egypt and the dates accepted by Egyptologists. This is "common knowledge" among people who are qualified to speak in this area. It is therefore very germane to a discussion of C-14 dates for Jericho, which again is directly related to the credibility of Dr. Wood as a scientist. If the Egyptologists are right and the C-14 specialists are wrong, then it means that Dr. Wood's dates for Jericho are correct. If this is ever established, he will be seen as a scholar who had the courage, the insight, and the detailed knowledge to present a correct theory while many other archaeologists (Kenyon, etc.) will be shown to have a flawed methodology.

The present state of the conflict is this: current C-14 research as compared to Egyptology strongly suggests that C-14 dates for the Late Bronze Age need to be reduced by from 100 to 150 years, so that Kenyon's dates for Jericho (1550) should be brought down to about 1450 to 1400 BC, exactly in accordance with Dr. Wood's research. PiCo is doing everything he can to present this well-known information from being presented in this Web page. It obviously has everything to do with Dr. Wood's credibility. But PiCo's only response continues to be the statement that any further discussion of the issues he himself introduced (the stratigraphic and C-14 evidence for the destruction of Jericho City IV) is "tendentious" and "irrelevant." This in spite of the fact that the entries in this matter are documented, and reflect current scholarship, unlike PiCo's undocumented show no knowledge of current scholarship.

PiCo, the only honest thing for you to do is to stop editing this page or any other page that has to do with archaeology and ancient history. Your actions have proved your consistent double standard, your bias, and your lack of any real knowledge in this field. Please be honest and leave these studies to other, more capable individuals.

Hoping you have a better day soon, Chronic2 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation
Chronic2, I've placed the following request for informal mediation on the user page of FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®. Please understand that all I'm asking FayssalF is too look into this edit war between us and suggest a way forward - this simply can't continue. Also, please understand that FalyssalF isn't a friend of mine or in any way connected to me - he's an administrator who I respect, having watched him at work on one very difficult case. I say this in case you think I'm out to get you - please, I'm not, I just want to create a good working environment on Wikipedia. (You're welcome to message FalyssalF yourself of course, or indeed anyone at all, but I repeat, you're not being accused of misconduct, just of misunderstanding how Wiki works - and I'm open to being told that I'm at fault myself). PiCo (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

BEGINS

Hi Fayssal. I'd like to requeast your help on a dispute with another user on a specific page. The page is 99Bryant G. Wood]] and the user is Chronic2.

The page has turned into an edit war, which is not something I want. Chronic2 is a new user, and a bit headstrong. Relations are now so poisoned that he won't listen to me and so I'm asking you to take a dispassionate look and suggest what should be done. I expect you to criticise me as much anyone else involved, of course - your impartiality is the reason I'm putting this message on your page.

Background: Bryant Wood is an archaeologist involved in Biblical subjects. He's also a Creationist (not an insult - he describes himself as such, and his credentials as a working archaeologist are as good as anyone else's), and something of a star in the eyes of those who wish to build a case for the Bible's claim to be a record of events.

Wood's major achievement has been a redating of Biblical Jericho from the 1550s BC - the generally accepted date, but one which doesn't fit the Biblical chronology for its destruction by Joshua - to around 1400, a date which does. He did this by closely examining the classical excavation by Kathleen Kenyon, which forms the basis of the consensus. His analysis was quite cogent and couldn't be simply dismissed, but it was of course controversial - and bear in mind what I said above about Wood's qualifications as an archaeologist being as good as anyone's. Anyway, there was a controversy around 1990, when Wood published his critique of Kenyon. Then in 1995 some new C14 dates were produced, and Wood's dating was shown to be impossible. The consensus has now returned to Kenyon's dates.

Now for my dispute with Chronic2: He wants to add material which I regard as irrelevant and tendentious. What's being sought is your views on that.

In a nutshell, Chronic2 is adding material which, to my mind, relates to a dispute over the conflict between C14 dates for Aegean/Near Eastern ancient history (including Egypt), and the traditional chronology determined by archaeologists using such means as changes in pottery types over centuries, changes in art styles, dynastic records, and a whole host of other things. This dispute is real and ongoing - and it's important, within it's own parameters. But I don't think the article on Brant Wood is the place for it. That's the irrelevant part.

As for the tendentious side, Chronic2 quotes one side only of the dispute over the impact of C14 dates on ME chronology. He quotes just one scholar (Manfred Beitak) who champions the traditionalists, and ignores the other side completely. Then he introduces the conclusion that "ultimately the question of the date of the destruction of Jericho should be discussed based on the more traditional stratigraphic studies that rely heavily on pottery types." This, of course, is entirely his own view.

I would be grateful if you could offer us some way forward on this in terms of the policy guidelines we use on Wikipedia. If you don't want to get involved I'll understand, but frankly I'm tired of this edit-warring and want to find a way to end it.PiCo (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ENDS

+ = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + =

Entry from Chronic2, 28 Aug 2008.

Thanks, PiCo, for finally presenting your case on this page.

Allow me to point out that it was PiCo, in his initial edit for this article on 13:47, 7 September 2007, who first introduced the section on Jericho, in which arguments were presented against Dr. Wood's research. These arguments were based on stratigraphic considerations and C-14 dating. PiCo's entry was largely taken from the Web pages of a person who does not publish in the scholarly journals, and who is not regarded highly by the consensus of scholarship. PiCo provided no proper citation in this entry, a violation of Wikipedia standards, instead giving two links to the Web site where he had gotten his information. The information served his purposes, because it was entirely negative to Dr. Wood's research. It made the blanket statement that Dr. Wood was wrong on four counts, without explaining to the reader what those counts were, again violating Wikipedia standards.

But the important point for adjudicating in this matter is the following: It was PiCo who introduced stratigraphic and C-14 arguments in an order to discredit Wood. As just said, this was done without any proper citation (the reference to articles in Radiocarbon were added later by MyOlmec, who at the same time updated the article with proper scholarship – PiCo tried to delete MyOlmec's contributions, but left in the citation). MyOlmec, PiCo, and I therefore all would agree that C-14 scholarship is very relevant to whether Dr. Wood's research has any credibility. Otherwise PiCo would not have introduced this argument in attempting to discredit Wood.

It therefore is puzzling, and obviously inconsistent, that PiCo has always attempted to delete any entry that updates this scholarship, giving proper citations, whereas PiCo has never supplied such. He has labeled such attempts as "tendentious" and "irrelevant." Is this consistent with his having brought in the whole question to begin with? Why is it irrelevant and tendentious to update his inadequate entry with properly cited scholarship?

Let us suppose the following. Much of the chronology of the ancient lands bordering the Mediterranean is base on Mycenaen pottery. Now suppose that some new finding convinced everyone who is qualified to speak in this area that Mycenaen dates need to be adjusted backwards (or forwards, it makes no difference) by 100 years. In a discussion of a city in the Levant for which the dating was based on Mycenaen pottery, would it be appropriate in a Wikipedia article to introduce this new information, giving proper citations to leading Grecian and Egyptian archaeologists? Would it be proper to update a Wikipedia article that only has the old viewpoint because the person who made the entry was either unaware of, or biased against, this new data?

The same is true of the C-14 question. PiCo introduced this in the first place, in an effort to discredit Dr. Wood's research. If that were the end of the matter, this entry (if it had been derived from a proper source and suitably referenced, which it wasn't) would be germane to an analysis of whether Wood's scholarship is credible. Why then were the efforts of MyOlmec to introduce more modern scholarship, as well as mine to update the C-14 question, labeled as "tendentious" and "irrelevant"?

Here are some questions for PiCo:

1) Do you maintain that your initial entry into this article, on 13:47, 7 September 2007, met Wikipedia guidelines? (Need for proper citations, need for a balanced approach, Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately)

2) Do you think that your using of blanket generalizations, unsupported by any citation or even explanation, is proper in Wikpedia? (Wood's research argued unsuccessfully, Wood's proposal was shown to be unsustainable.)

3) Do you agree that your bringing of Garstang's findings in the discussion was appropriate, since this bears directly on the credibility of Dr. Wood's research?

4) Was your initial undocumented statement that Garstang inferred the dates for Jericho City IV from the Bible correct?

5) If your statement was not correct, would it be appropriate to correct it, using a citation from Gartsang's writings or some other reputable source, in order to meet Wikipedia standards?

6) Is it appropriate, when your initial wrong entries have been corrected by MyOlmec or myself, explaining with proper citations, that you then call the corrections tendentious and irrelevant?

7) Do you still agree with your position in September of last year, that introducing the question of C-14 and stratigraphic dating of Jericho City IV is appropriate to making a decision about Dr. Wood's credibility?

8) If so, do you think that additions to that discussion that bring in more recent scholarly evidence, with proper citations, is appropriate?

9) If you agree with the last question, but say that the corrections that were made to your entries were incorrect, why did you not add corrected data or countering information, instead of just deleting them, calling them irrelevant and tendentious?

10) If corrections were made based on the hypothetical case of Mycenaen scholarship mentioned above, as then applied to a city in the Levant the same way that scholars recognize that this information is relevant to all areas surrounding the Mediterranean, would it be appropriate to say that the person introducing such information was merely expressing his own views?

11) Can you tell us of any place in your several edits where you have given a proper citation?

I would think it important that FayssalF or anyone else who is interested in judging rightly what has been happening with this Wikipedia article has your response to these questions. You have successfully dominated the updating of this page for the past 11 months, thanks to your Wikipedia skills, not to any demonstrated scholarship. If some of us have been awkward in correcting your numerous errors of fact and violations of Wikipedia standards because we are new to Wikipedia editing, please excuse us. But these corrections to your deficient scholarship were not made because of lack of knowledge of the relevant subject matter.

With wishes for a better day,

Chronic2 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

first step
I have removed one sentence of blatantly egregious OR, in which the article states without a source which of two disputed views is preferred. I deliberately did not look to see who added it--regardless of other matters, such a sentence cannot stand. It's a basic principle of WP that we do not make such judgments. I also removed what seemed a totally unwarranted notability tag on the article, again without looking who placed it. He and his views are clearly notable. DGG (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A summary
PiCo and Chronic2, the below is a summary addressing all of your points. -- --  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * comment about C-14 dating. As I understand it, though the principles of c-14 dating are totally agreed by everyone involved, the problem of correlating the C-14 age scale with chronological years has been an ongoing one from the development of the method 50 years ago, and has changed several times. Various corrections are needed., both world-wide and for specific regions, and there are multiple additional data which can be used. This critically affects all dates in ancient history, including t he one here, and the significance of the disputes affect a number of other data interpretations as well. The best data series in chronological years, and one which has been used as a standard from the first, are the Egyptian dynastic records--but their internal interpretation is also problematic at various points and has been debated incessantly. And there are others--Babylonian records, dendrochronology, etc.--it's not just a question of matching these two series. The implication in the present wording of the article that the C-14 data merely need to be matched against the Egyptian data is oversimplified. So, fayssal, I think your first though that it affects just the Jericho dating here was not correct--it's a general question with an immense literature of scholars who do not agree on the scholarly consensus. .  And this implies that PiCo is correct, and that it should not be covered extensively here--just to say that among the disputed possibilities are ones that cover the entire range involved. If anyone is prepared to say that we can present information from which the intelligent non specialist can tell who is actually correct, they misunderstand the complexities.
 * I will not refrain from mentioning that those who believe in the errancy/inerrancy of the OT tend to select data which confirms their view; for them, the problem is basically one of trying to use archaeology to prove or disprove the Bible. Those who think it is impossible for the Bible to be wrong about historical facts will obviously try very hard to find possible scientific interpretations consistent with this. Those persuaded that there is no reason why it should be considered accurate, may sometimes be trying equally hard to disprove it, and thus looking for whatever information will discredit it. In my view, an objective scientific historian must take the data -- all of the data -- as it comes, recognizing interpretation to be tentative, and letting the results be what they may without trying to match it to a personal world view. Unfortunately, many people who are interested in history, and perhaps most of those who are interested in this particular period,  are interested precisely because they do want to confirm their more general world view. But  believers can still be objective historian if willing to admit that interpretation may be complex, and   atheists if recognizing that the Bible getting one date right doesn't imply that everything in it is right also. DGG (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

PiCo's response to summary
Fayssal, I'm not sure how or where I'm to respond to your summary, but I'll try this - if it's in the wrong place or format or whatever, we can move it. I'll go through your summary by sections.

Main issues
Yes, I agree that there's a dispute among scholars and that it remains unresolved. More precisely, the dispute relates to dates for the Eastern Mediterranean in the zone 1700-1400BC, with C14 dates over the last 30 years consistently out of step with the traditional dating for the period. Chronic2 mis-states the terms of the dispute: it's not over whether "C-14 dates for the Late Bronze Age need to be reduced by from 100 to 150 years," but how C14 dates and traditional dates are to be reconciled. Reducing the C14 dates seems at this point the least likely outcome, so unlikely in fact as to be out of the question; the emerging feeling in the literature is that the traditional dates will have to move upwards.

For reference, see this abstract of a 2006 academic paper in Science magazine dating the Thera eruption to 1627-1600 BC with a margin of error of 95%]. As the authors note, this a century earlier than the traditional date derived from Egyptian chronologies. The implications for traditional archaeological dates for the surrounding region are sketched in this second article from the same issue: the authors conclude that the latest Thera dates require "reassessment of standard interpretations of associations between the Egyptian and Near Eastern historical dates and phases and those in the Aegean and Cyprus in the mid–second millennium B.C." Granted that this is only one side of an as-yet unresolved dispute, it still undermines Chronic2's claim that it's the C14 dates that need to be moved down.

References and citing
I'm not quite sure what Chronic2 is refering to in boxes 1 and 2 (the boxes created in your summary). I'm guessing here, but I think he means that I should better explain and cite the references to Garstang and Kenyon. If so, this is a reasonable point, as Wood's re-evaluation of the Jericho site was done to compare these two excavations.

Necessary background: The towering figure of early 20th century archaeology in Palestine hasn't even been mentioned in the article, but he was William F. Albright. Albright was a great man by anyone's measure, and did immense service to Biblical archaeology. Possibly his greatest achievement was to set out the detailed description of ancient pottery types which became the prime tool by which dates in Syro-Palestinian sites were measured. It's been refined since, but never seriously questioned. Anyway, Albright believed that the Bible was a fairly reliable guide to the interpretation of arcaheological finds. He had no reason to believe otherwise. But he saw it only as a fairly reliable guide - reliable as the the basic events, but not the chronology. So he believed that there had been an Exodus, and a Conquest of Canaan, but not that the Bible's ascribed dates for these events were necessarily accurate. And so one of his concerns was to identify evidence of the Conquest (and other things too, but Jericho relates to the Conquest), and get the dates right.

In the 1920s Carl Watzinger reexamined pottery from Jericho which he and Ernst Sellin had excavated between 1907 and 1909 and concluded that Jericho was not occupied when Joshua presumably would have lived, and that this meant that the biblical account of the Israelite conquest of Jericho was a legend. In this he was supporting the conclusions of another great scholar of the period, Albrecht Alt - with whom Albright was not on the best of intellectual terms. Albright was appalled. Garstang was Albright's protegee, and a great archaeologist in his own right. Where Albright's strength was in the interpretation of data, Garstang was a great field archaeologist, and the two made a formidable team. They decided to put this matter to the test by carrying out a very careful excavation of Jericho.

Note that Albright and Garstang were doing what any professional archaeologist would do, then or now: Watzinger's work had suggested a discordance between observed facts (Watzinger's interpretation of his pottery finds) and the existing over-arching interpretive framework for Syro-Palestinian archaeology (Albright's construct of Syro-Palestinian bronze age history based on the narrative trustworthines of the Old Testament - a belief which Alt did not share). They were now putting this to the test.

Garstang's results supported Albright over Watzinger and Alt: he dated the relevant destruction layer (the Jericho IV layer) to 1400 BC, in line with the Biblical story of Joshua's campaign in Canaan. Note that the methods he used for his dating were as reliable and scientific as the age allowed - he was expecting his results to support the Biblical Conquest story, but he didn't hold those results a priori; he was a scientist, not a Creationist.

Over the next few decades new techniques of excavation were introduced and dating was refined. These new techniques were applied to Jericho by Kathleen Kenyon between 1951 and 1958, and her findings contradicted Garstang: she showed that the destruction happened earlier than Garstang had believed, and that in 1400BC Jericho was deserted. So it seemed Alt ("Bible-is-myth-and-legend) and not Albright (Bible-is-history) was in front, at least for the reliability of the Book of Joshua.

There's a good bio of Kenyon here, one which also mentions the weaknesses of her new approach. And there were real weaknesses. So in 1990 Wood re-examined her work, and cast doubt on her findings. His implication was that if we reject Kenyon then we have to return to Garstang, which doesn't really stand up in terms of logic: it's quite possible that both are wrong. Anyway, Wood's arguments caused a controversy. Please note again that Wood is a genuine archaeologist, his critique was well-based and well-argued, and he was taken seriously by his peers.

Wood's case was overturned by new radiocarbon evidence, which supported Kenyon's dates. But this is getting well beyond the subject of this section, which is references and citations for Garstang and Kenyon. I've already given you the Kenyon biography. For a wider overview, try Maxwell Miller's "History or Legend''.

Chronic2's says I've tendentiously referenced Gerald Aardsma at biblicalchronologist.org (he actually says biblearchaeology, but this seems to be an error). Chronic2 says that Aardsma's site is not a scholarly one, and that Aardsma's proposed dates for the Exodus are ridiculous. I agree. Aardsma is fringe. But, his explanation of the Bryant Wood controversy is the best I've seen - it's impartial, concise (or fairly so), accurate, and aimed at just the right level for the average Wiki reader as I conceive him or her. I wish I could put a red sticker on Aardsma's article saying "He's on-topic here but generally a crank", but I can't. Whether the article is suitable with this caveat, I leave to you. Anyway, here it is].

By the way, this is really central to what Wood is trying to do: over the decades since Albright and Garstang, the scholarly concesus has shifted considerably, and there's now no real dispute that nothing in the Old Testament from Genesis to Kings is historical - no Adam and Eve, no Flood, no Abraham, no Exodus, no Conquest, no Judges. The debate now is centred on whether the story of David and Solomon can be taken seriously. This is not to say that there aren't some respected people out there arguing that Genesis is real history and that the Exodus really happened and the Conquest as well - Kenneth Kitchen is the main name - but that position is definitely a minority one these days. As a Creationist, Wood wants to support his own view of the historical value of the early Bible books - a position far more conservative thjan that of Albright and Garstang, who believed that the Bible was only approximately reliable.

Finally in this section, Chronic2 seems to be accusing me of introducing controversial material about Wood. I'm afraid I'll need him to be more precise before I can comment on that.

Irrelevancy
You (Fayssal) say that "[t]he dispute is related to the accuracy and validity of the subject's work." Not quite. There is no dispute that Wood's 1990 critique of Kenyon's dating of Jericho IV was valid scholarship and was treated as such by his professional peers - nor that he's a genuine archaeologist, albeit one who works within a paradigm (Creationism) which is well outside the mainstream. Nor, I think, is there any dispute that the radiocarbon analysis made by Bruins and van der Plicht in 1995 put the destruction of MBA Jericho (Jericho IV) at some point during the late 17th or the 16th century BC - i.e., 1650-1500 BC (or 1620-1530 BC as our article has it). Nor can there be any doubt that this overlaps Kenyon's 1550 destruction date and rules out Wood/Garstang's 1400 BC date.

Note also that these dates are reliable to a margin of 95%.

Given all this, it seems to me quite specious to try to argue that the 1995 C14 dates should be set aside. Yet this is what Chronic2 is doing. His argument rests on the ongoing dispute over how C14 dates from the Thera eruption are to be reconciled with traditional dates for Aegean/Egyptian/Near Eastern chronology. He cites Manfred Bietak in support: "I am not impressed," says Manfred Beitak. Maybe so, but a lot of others, just as eminent as Bietak, are impressed. As I've pointed out above, the general movement in scholarly circles is that the traditional dates need to be reassessed in the light of the radiometric data, not the other way round (refs for this are already given above). Nor is the extent of the adjustment likely to be great - probably less than a hundred years (which would still leave Kenyon's dating in place). In short, the entire chronological debate is a red herring in terms of this article. PiCo (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

+ = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + = + =

Update from Chronic2 (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Treating last things first: Let me state that I would find it eminently satisfactory for the purposes of this article if the opinion that PiCo states in his last paragraph were available in this article on Bryant Wood. It does need some correction and slight amplification. But first let me reiterate the reason it is important – although apparently we're all agreed now that it is. The reason is that it bears directly on whether Wood's dating of Jericho's City IV, based on stratigraphy and very much on pottery, is correct; in other words, whether he should be the primary person for the scientific and historical community should consult on this matter, versus the present predilection for the conclusions of Kenyon. This should be decided on the evidence alone, not any (tendentious) mentioning of whether or not Wood is trying to verify the Bible, something that PiCo keeps trying to introduce.

Please note that this whole question is summarized in a fairly short paragraph at the end of the Jericho section as it now stands, which reads:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Given the present unsettled state of this controversy over radiocarbon dates, it would seem that those who put their confidence in the C14 method will continue to favor 1550 BC for the destruction of Jericho, whereas those who follow the lead of Bietak and other Egyptologists should be open to the later date, in view of the fact that the required adjustments to C14 dating favors the Garstang/Wood chronology. Giving priority to the C14 dates and ignoring the caution expressed by Egyptologists in this matter would also seem to carry with it the necessity of advocating that all dates of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom should be moved back in time by 100 to 150 years.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

As I understand it from his latest entry, PiCo would agree with this statement, although he might be tempted to recast it so it is more slanted toward his own opinion. That opinion, which he has stated above, is that the archaeologists need to revise all their dates upward, based on the C-14 data.

I wrote the above paragraph about "the present unsettled state of this controversy", giving a footnote referring back to the Science article that I had cited earlier. It seems to me that this is something we could agree on, and I hope it is sufficiently concise and balanced that it does not need to present the reader with a whole long discussion of the C-14 debate that is current, highly disputed, and a long way from resolution.

Why, then, did PiCo delete this paragraph, so that all the reader was left with was his own original assertion, that C-14 data contradicted Wood? Is this a balanced approach? Does it not show the ongoing bias that PiCo has had in his editing over the last 11 months?

In his last paragraph above, PiCo says I "argue that the 1995 C14 dates should be set aside." That is not correct, if it is to be understood in the sense that I do not want a discussion of them. They are, as I said, entirely relevant here. They were discussed in my entries, including the citation from Science on this matter. What is correct is that the consequences of accepting them should be clearly drawn, as in my paragraph above. After that paragraph, I originally concluded by saying that the application of the C-14 data to dating is such a controversial issue that, for now, it is best to rely on stratigraphic concerns, the traditional approach of archaeologists.

That last paragraph was deleted by DGG as a "blatantly egregious OR, in which the article states without a source which of the two disputed views is preferred." Now that I am more informed on Wikipedia polices, I could agree with that; however I would point out that it is in agreement with the common consensus of archaeologists, and in a sense it was documented by the Science article previously cited. But now I basically agree with DGG's conclusion. In the same way, PiCo's statement that "the emerging feeling in the literature is that the traditional dates will have to move upward" is in the same category. His statement definitely needs to be substantiated and qualified.

If there is fairness here, then PiCo's assertion in his last paragraph above should be treated in the same way: "The general movement in scholarly circles is that the traditional dates need to be reassessed in the light of radiometric data, not the other way round." He says this is documented in the refs above, presumably the Science article that I first introduced into this discussion. But that is not a fair summary of the current state of affairs. The situation is that the radiocarbon specialists (the physical scientists, who write most of the articles in the Radiocarbon journal) are disposed to this view. But archaeologists, at least for the ANE where the chronological work has been going on for a long time, are overwhelmingly against such a correction.

I am not against the physical evidence. I am also aware that there are many facets to the C-14 question that should not be discussed here; leave the question to the radiocarbon page, as PiCo suggests. But it is entirely appropriate to state that there is a debate going on, and the outcome of that debate directly affects the question of the dating of Jericho City IV. This is what I said, trying to be quite succinct about it; the quote I gave to Science magazine, I thought, accomplished that quite well. We do not need to go into any further detail about the C-14 controversy itself. PiCo then deleted this? PiCo, Why? You are now referring to Science in this present discussion page; why was it not appropriate when I introduced it in order to summarize very shortly, from a highly respected journal, the whole question? Your reason: "irrelevant, tendentious." That is, it provided a needed correction for your previous, undocumented statement that the C-14 statement ruled against Wood.

It would be entirely appropriate, then, to include such information in the present article, omitting either my POV that was deleted and PiCo's obvious POV. As far as I can see it, that would leave us with the last paragraph in the Jericho section as it now stands. But I also would like the obvious conclusion drawn, a conclusion that PiCo agrees with – accepting the C-14 data as having priority means that the dates for Egypt's Middle Kingdom need to be updated by from 100 to 200 years. This is something very understandable by the ordinary reader. It has every reason to be included here as a natural consequence, and I'm glad that PiCo agrees with this necessary consequence. By all means this should be left in. It would be unacceptable to go back to PiCo's entry (as usual, uncited) that says the C-14 data is against Wood's dates

PiCo deleted my correction to his wrong statement about Garstang. Now it seems he wants to enter a long discussion about Garstang's relation to Albright. (Incidentally, his statement that Albright is presently not mentioned is incorrect). This is unnecessary; what is germane is whether Garstang was unscientific by deriving his dates from the Bible rather than his archaeological findings. This was the inference in PiCo's (once again uncited) insertion into the article. When I showed that this statement was erroneous, giving a proper citation, it was deleted ("tendentious, irrelevant"). No citation was given for the substitution where PiCo got caught in his error. Now he probably wants to enter some longer discussion (tendentious? irrelevant?) about Garstang's relation to Albright. Why is this necessary? Why is anything more necessary than my fairly short entry dispelling the myth, previously put in by PiCo, that Garstang derived his date from the Bible? Why did PiCo erase this? Because it was tendentious? As far as I see, it was stating a fact that was verified from Garstang's own writings. Was PiCo's initial, undocumented statement, tendentious? What was the purpose of it if not to discredit Garstang, and thus indirectly Wood, whose dates agree with those of Garstang?

PiCo writes if Wood in his entry above, "His implication was that if we reject Kenyon the we have to return to Garstang, which doesn't really stand up in terms of logic: it's quite possible that both are wrong." What a statement! Where does he get this? How does he know that this was Wood's intention, rather than letting the data determine the dating? I hope any impartial person can see PiCo's continual bias, in which he puts his own ideas in without any proper citation to back up his statement. PiCo, maybe there is somewhere that Wood said what you are telling us he said. If so, either give us a citation or admit that you are making things up in order to foster your own views. If the latter, you have no business any more as an editor of this page.

Also in what he said above, he claimed that Gerald Aardsma's entry was "impartial, concise (or fairly so), accurate, and aimed at just the right level for the average Wiki reader." The last clause is correct, and the Aardsma quotation that PiCo pasted in was concise, all right. Too much so. It was this quotation that was not properly referenced (journal was mentioned, but not the author or issue), and it was so concise that it said, in its quote (pasted in from yet another unreferenced Web site?) that Wood was wrong on all four counts, and then does not go ahead to say why he was wrong on any of these counts. But that sort of conciseness is just what PiCo originally put in, and even now is defending. The citation was not impartial, nor was in accurate, yet PiCo continues to defend it as such. Amazing. That initial entry itself was a clear violation of Wikipedia policies. PiCo went on from there to aggressively use his editing skills to stop anyone from updating his anti-Wood entries. Some of these were from unexperienced persons, but some were from people who were following carefully Wikipedia polices. Pico deleted them anyway, again never giving a proper citation or counter argument. This has made it very difficult for anyone who wants to contribute something positive to the present article.

I'm going to put this in for now, although I have some more to say. The real problem here is not a debate about the reliability of C-14 dating, or whether that should be chosen over the conventional stratigraphic arguments that virtually all Egyptologists and Levantine archaeologists (for 2nd millennium BC, at least) are unwilling to give up. The real question is: has PiCo misused his privileges as an editor to constantly squelch anything that did not agree with his views, deleting properly cited scholarly references to return to his own views? And, in doing so, has he consistently violated clearly stated Wikipedia policies, even from his first entry?

Signing off for now, since I have something to attend to,

Chronic2 (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not C-14 dating, but abuse of Wikipedia policies
Entry by Chronic2 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The C-14 discussion should draw the necessary conclusions
It is clear from what has already been said that the C14 controversy has a direct bearing on the credibility of Dr. Wood as a scientist. That is why it was introduced by PiCo. I think we can all agree on the consequences of the controversy. They are (1) if the majority of physical scientists are right, then the dates for the Late Bronze Age must be increased by at least 100 years. This would mean that the Garstang/Wood date for Jericho (approximately 1400 BC) cannot be sustained. (2) If the physical scientists are wrong and the archaeologists are right, then, for some reason yet unknown, C14 dates need adjustment and the C14 dates of 1550 for the fall of Jericho City IV must be brought down by from 100 to 150 years, in agreement with the date originally given by Garstang. (That C14 dates are not sacrosanct but might need adjustment in some way has already been settled by the dendrochronology question.)

The ordinary and not-well-informed reader will undoubtedly prefer to believe what the physical scientists say, since in terms of credibility and esteem in our society, they're higher on the totem pole than archaeologists. So, if the only statement that is entered is that C14 data shows that Garstang and Wood are wrong, without mentioning the C14 controversy, this would settle the matter for the casual reader: Wood is wrong.

PiCo knew this. That is why he erased my entry that brought some new light on his uncited C14 reference, a reference that was well suited to discredit Wood. In his discussion above, however, he is even willing to refer to the Science article I cited, and he advocates what the radiocarbon specialists advocate, that the archaeologists need to get their act together and update their dates to what is pontificated by the "real" (i.e. physical) scientists. As I have mentioned, this has been fought by the archaeologists; they are not willing to budge.

Lest it be thought that I am biased against the physical scientists, that is not the case. But I do know some of the assumptions that must be true if their methods are to be accepted as valid over other kinds of evidence, such as the assumption that C14 production in the atmosphere has been constant over recorded history. I have published original research in the appropriate scientific journal on a new technique to increase the accuracy of one of the tools that is basic to their findings, namely the quadrupole mass spectrometer. So there's no anti-science bias on my part. I am, however, also aware of the opinions of archaeologists on this question, and I do not think those opinions can be swept under the rug as "unscientific."

As has been said, there is no need for any extended discussion on these things in the present article. What is relevant is that, if the physical scientists are right, then all the pottery that Wood cites in his dating of Jericho City IV needs to be updated by more than 100 years. This is not fatal to his relative stratigraphy, since the same would be done for everybody else's arguments based on pottery, including Kenyon's incomplete results in this field. What it would do, however, would be to show that the Biblical date for the conquest that is derived from a literal reading of 1 Kings 6:1 and the commonly accepted dates for Solomon cannot be sustained. All this is a fair inference if the physical scientists are right in the present state of knowledge, and it has every right to be stated (hopefully, succinctly) in the present article.

If, however, the archaeologists are right and the physical scientists are wrong, there is also an inference that needs to be drawn, and it is just as relevant to the present article as is that of the previous paragraph. It means that the C14 dates now commonly assigned to Jericho City IV need to be down-dated by 100 to 150 years. This would bring the commonly-accepted date, that of Kenyon of about 1550 BC, down to the latter part of the 15th century. Can there be any question that this would now, instead of contradicting the Bible's date for Jericho, instead verify it, independent of whatever research Garstang, Kenyon, or Wood had done on the pottery?

I feel it is just this necessary inference that PiCo is fighting tooth and nail. And for myself, whether or not the Wikipedia editor allows this inference to be drawn is a test of whether any further entries I seek to make in the fields in which I currently publish will be given fair treatment. Presumably we're all agreed that with inference that the C14 data shows that Middle Kingdom dates need to be increased by 100 or 200 years if the physical scientists are correct. Further, that this has relevance to the Wood article. The opposite inference is that if the physical scientists are not correct in their present position, but that C14 dates must be adjusted down (for mid-second millennium) by about 100 to 150 years in accordance with the position of archaeologists, then the C14 dates that PiCo originally cited against Wood now need to be downdated by 100-150 years so that, instead of contradicting the Garstang/Wood date, it now supports it. Are we all willing to state this consequence, just as I thought we were coming around to an agreement on the consequence, advocated by PiCo, that archaeological dates need to be increased if the physical scientists are correct? This can all be stated fairly, as I tried to do in the paragraph that now ends the Jericho section. This paragraph needs to very succinctly state the consequence I just stated that follows necessarily if the C14 dates need adjustment. And I thought I presented this in an equitable way by my quotations from Science that PiCo tried to delete.

We need the freedom to draw both inferences. This question should not be swept under the rug. I am sincerely hoping that the Wikipedia editor, whatever his or her personal opinion on the dates of Jericho, etc., will allow the kind of properly cited references that I have been supplying in order to present a side of the issue that, for a long time, has been dominated by PiCo's aggressive editing.

The real question: PiCo's abuse of editing privileges for last 11 months
I had been looking at some other sites, and when I saw this article on Bryant Wood I knew that there were several unfair and erroneous things in it. So I decided to update a few of these erroneous statements with properly cited, more modern, findings. Then I ran into the problem: anything I cited of any substance was being deleted by a certain "PiCo". PiCo then became upset, using terms the terms we're all familiar with to merely undo my contributions. On further investigation, I discovered that all the entries that I saw were erroneous were made by this same PiCo. With more investigation I found that none, and I mean NONE, of PiCo's entries have had any proper citations, starting with his very first entry. That first entry was a disgrace, blatantly violating Wikipedia policies as well as any proper scholarship, and here he is still defending it in his entry into this page as of 29 August, 10:23 (Pico's response to summary).

What was going on here? Was this the kind of treatment that I was going to get as a new editor, updating statements that were clearly wrong, biased, or improperly cited?

More investigation: I found that this was exactly the treatment that has occurred to anyone else who updated PiCo's erroneous and anti-Wood statements, over an extended period of time. I have looked for anywhere that PiCo resorted to recent scholarship in order to more precisely refine the relevant issue, giving some appropriate citation. I have looked at all his edits, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I found that never was this done. It was always general statements like not obviously relevant to the subject or tendentious, irrelevant in the comment field. The other person's contribution was just deleted or the whole previous update undone. Most of the updates thus labeled by PiCo were neither tendentious nor irrelevant, but suffered from the misfortune of contradicting PiCo's opinions. In no case has PiCo ever replaced the properly cited contributions that he disagreed with (and deleted) by a proper citation. If this is not true, PiCo owes it to us to point out where he did this proper thing instead of just abusing his editor privileges.

This activity is intolerable. Neither does it come from someone who is inexperienced with the ways of Wikipedia. PiCo has had a lot of experience in Wikipedia editing, over a long period of time. But he has misused that experience in order to intimidate others who brought in valid arguments and citations that contradicted his erroneous, biased, and not properly documented entries. If this is allowed to continue, there will be continual warfare over this site, even if I personally were to leave it alone for other pursuits – for the simple reason that anyone who does not share PiCo's biases will some day notice all PiCo's erroneous statements, but when they try to update they will be intimidated by his aggressive and oppressive editing practices, dismissing anything that contradicts his biases with the usual adjectives (since he's a writer, he'll think of some new ones) and no authentic scholarship.

Will PiCo answer the 11 questions above?
I have tried to answer PiCo's questions of me in his entry above (Pico's response to summary). I have made some serious statements about the ethics of PiCo's editorial activities over the last 11 months. I do not feel this kind of activity should be allowed to continue. As I have tried to answer PiCo's questions, I think it only fair that he answer my 11 questions above. If he cannot do that, it would be an admission that he does not want to discuss these serious questions. These are ultimately not questions about C14 dating, Garstang, or the validity of these arguments. They are questions about the ethics of his practices over the last 11 months on this site. Since these are serious charges, they need a serious answer. PiCo can paste them in the 11 questions below and answer them, one by one; if I have been unfair in asking a certain question, go ahead and say so. I would even suggest that you fill in an answer to the 11th one first, and then in case you find some reason not to answer the others, the Wikipedia editors would have something concrete to go on with the question that is really at the center of this all: has user PiCo misused his Wikipedia editing privileges in his activities for the last 11 months on this site, or are these activities acceptable?

Chronic2 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Question 12: provide citation for his statement above that impugns Wood's character
Again from Chronic2 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also made another serious charge that I would like to add as question 12. It was the following: Pico had stated about Dr. Wood: "His implication was that if we reject Kenyon the we have to return to Garstang, which doesn't really stand up in terms of logic: it's quite possible that both are wrong."

To this, I responded: "PiCo, maybe there is somewhere that Wood said what you are telling us he said. If so, either give us a citation or admit that you are making things up in order to foster your own views. If the latter, you have no business any more as an editor of this page."

Is my statement too strong? Or is it that, if PiCo continues to make unsubstantiated and biased statements like this, then strong action needs to be taken to remove him from editorship of this page? Something needs to be done if the second alternative is true, namely that PiCo again has given a statement that slurs Wood's character, without any basis in truth. So it is easily decided if this is the case: PiCo needs to supply where he got this information from. If he can't, this is just an additional demonstration of the kind of treatment that we can expect in the future if PiCo is allowed continued editing privileges to this page.

So to the above list, add question 12: What is the source for your statement that Wood had that bias, and that he was illogical because both could be wrong? Supplying the quote will vindicate your cause in this one matter; nothing else will. It would still leave the other 11 questions in need of an answer.

Waiting to hear from you. Sorry if I've had to be blunt. You (PiCo) have apparently done some good things in your time like fighting the human slave traffic. We all wish you godspeed in that.

Chronic2 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be a biography of an archaeologist, the arguments about Jericho belong in the Jericho argument
I've just discovered this problem this morning. It seems blatantly obvious that most of the material being argued about does not belong in this article, which should be biographical, but either in the Jericho article or anywhere else the archaeological issues are being debated. I've also asked at least one editor who has added OR to read our policies on that carefully. I haven't done it yet, but there is still quite a bit of OR or at least unsourced stuff, and as it is in the parts that I don't see as biographical, I may just cut them out entirely, leaving the article a biography and hopefully NPOV and without OR. Doug Weller (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wood a creationist
I think this should be made clear in the lead, and I think this source, for this purpose, is ok, comments? Doug Weller (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I also think the entire Biography section could be merged into the lead - it's all pretty basic stuff. The remainder of the artic le would then be devoted to the high points of his career as an archaeologist, namely his work at Jericho, Khirbet el-Maqatir, and perhaps his work on Sodom and Gomorrah. Please note that Wood's credentials as an archaeologist are not in doubt - he's coming from an intellectual position which is not mainstream, but he's a genuine archaeologist. PiCo (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * unless his notability  in some way includes work on creationism I do not see how it is relevant. DGG (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * He edits a creationist magazine. He's a genuine archeologist and a prominent creationist probably because of that.. Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be a genuine archaeologist and a prominent Creationist at the same time is curious enough to be notable in its own right - there aren't many of them around. PiCo (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If Creatonist is OK here, why not elsewhere?
From Chronic2 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with what Doug said: it is not suitable to put this in the lead statement. I think it's clear that Dr. Wood is a creationist, as defined in the Wikipedia entry, where the first sentence is : "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed." The article goes on to define various types of creationism, including young-earth creationism, theistic evolution, etc.

At the library this afternoon, I saw the most recent issue of Bible and Spade. The lead article was by two Turkish archaeologists and an American. Should this article have said that these men were creationists, on the assumption that Turkish scholars are all Moslems? Two issues before was an article by Hershel Shanks; should he be labeled as far as his beliefs, or should the basic archeological questions be dealt with?

Question, then: why is that relevant here? If it is, then whoever adds it should be consistent, and add it to the site of any other archaeologist who, it can be established, follows Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Kenneth Kitchen and all the rest. And for anyone who does not believe that God created the universe, if it can be established that this is their belief (as it can, for example, for Carl Sagan), then be consistent and add in the lead line for Dr. Sagan that he was an atheist. This certainly has a lot to do with his presentation of his views, for instance, his statement that the the comsos is all that is, ever was, or ever will be. So put in the lead line for Sagan that he was an atheist.

I went to the library today to check out a reference given by Doug Weller that cited Leon Wood's A Survey of Israel's History as supporting the idea that Garstang derived his date for the fall of Jericho City IV from the Bible. I wanted to see what Leon Wood said, because the way the Bryant Wood article reads now, this directly contradicts what Garstang had said himself in his book Joshua, Judges that I had cited in order to replace the previous undocumented statement on this page. I found Leon Wood's book, and instead of supporting the statement that Garstang derived the date from the Bible, it said just what I had written previously, although in different words, when I quoted from Garstang's own writings.

In any careful scholarship, a primary source, when available, should always be cited instead of a secondary source. Why then was my correction to PiCo's wrong and undocumented statement replaced by PiCo with his "tendentious, irrelevant" comment, and then Doug put back in the same wrong statement -- documented this time, but where the documentation contradicts the text the way it stands?

Can we continue to expect this kind of treatment from PiCo, such as I have taken pains to document above?


 * Dr Wood holds executive positions in both Associates for Biblical Research and their magazine "Bible and Spade": this makes his creationism a matter of his professional, rather than his purely private, life. On Garstang and his dating of Jericho, I'll state my position here: Garstang derived his date from pottery typology, which is what I would expect from the most eminent Palestinian archaeologist of the day; but it agreed with the expected Bible-derived date for the Conquest, which Garstang had expected, and he accepted the scientific dating as confirmation of his religious expectations. (I might just add that I see nothing wrong with that - why shouldn't Garstang have religious beliefs?). Finally, on Carl Sagan, I can't say that he's ever been a subject of any interest whatsoever to me - you'll have to take your own decisions on what you do on his Wiki page. PiCo (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the Leonard Wood thing, but why go by the library when I put a link to the page? I've removed 'accordingly', and if it is felt that we need another cite to say he identified it with the Jericho of the Exodus that could be found.
 * As for the lead, he is a prominent creationist and for that reason I think the lead should say creationist. He is notable as both and highlighted for both on various creationist web sites, eg, . It is in no way similar to listing religious beliefs of other random archaeologists. I agree with what Pico has said just above. Doug Weller (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with my way of correcting the present wrong statement about Garstang?
What is the proper procedure to follow here, and who is following it? I don't think it will be proper to throw out why Garstang arrived at his date; PiCo obviously thought it was relevant, and that's why he put it in there. Now that a primary source can be cited to show that this statement was erroneous, will the correction be ruled out whereas the original (wrong) statement, apparently intended to discredit both Garstang and Wood, has gotten by this far? When a valid correction is made, properly cited, will both it and the original statement be rejected just because the correction does not continue a bias of one of the editors?

Please inform me of the proper way of correcting the present erroneous statement about Garstang, for which the (secondary) Leon Wood reference contradicts the present entry as it now stands, with a properly documented statement from a primary source. Further, when over in the library just now, I looked up Garstang's The Story of Jericho and his statements there are consistent with the quotes I gave from his Joshua, Judges. We have all agreed in the past that whether or not Garstang derived his dates for Jericho are relevant to a discussion of whether Bryant Wood's dates for Jericho are in any way credible. Now that it can be shown that Garstang did not derived his dates from the Bible, but from stratigraphy, pottery, and Egyptian/Canaanite history, so that the tide in this particular argument will turn around because of the proper citation of primary sources, will the decision be that the whole question must now be omitted from this discussion? And if so, how am I to interpret such a decision as related to scholarly objectivity and fairness?

Chronic2 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The proper way is by discussing on Talk, as you're now doing. What you should do is put forward a proposed text. As you haven't done so, may I step ion and suggest the following:
 * (existing text):During a series of excavations from 1930 to 1936 John Garstang found a destruction layer at Jericho corresponding to the termination of City IV which he identified with the biblical story of Joshua and accordingly dated to c. 1400 BC
 * (proposed replacement):In the 1930s John Garstang dated the destruction layer of City IV to 1400 BC, a date which accorded with the Biblical account of the city's destruction at the hands of Joshua and the Israelites.''
 * I don't include reference to how Garstang arrived at his dating because I don't see it as relevant - he and Kenyon both used pottery seriology, as did Wood. The important fact, and it was much commented on at the time, was the what - the implication for the historicity of the Bible. Doubtless you'll want to comment on this and propose an amendment. That's how Wiki works. PiCo (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My response (Chronic2) to questions; why aren't my questions being answered?
From Chronic2 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC) -- my response to questions asked above

Doug asked: "why go by the library when I put a link to the page" in Leon Wood's book that refers to the way that Garstang arrived at his date for the fall of Jericho City IV.

Sorry -- I didn't realize that the book was available on the Web, and that the [1] was meant to take a person there.

It is curious that you even gave this reference. It states what is the contrary to what your sentence, originally borrowed from PiCo, conveyed. The original sentence was plainly meant to discredit Garstang by saying that he derived his date from the Bible. Anyone would read it that way. But this is not what Leon Wood says; why did you handle it in this way? Why not say, to go along with the original sentence, that this is contradicted by the reference in Leon Wood?

When I pointed out that you had a contradictory and misleading entry in this matter, you changed it so that it no longer implies that Garstang derived his date from the Bible. However, that's what many people who are not conversant in these matters think; it was what PiCo thought until I corrected his unreferenced, biased statement with a referenced statement that showed he was wrong.

Here's what's curious: as soon as I show that a statement like this is wrong, and correct what I deem to be an entry that does not meet Wikipedia standards, my properly referenced statement is labeled as unnecessary or tendentious. Why weren't the same judgments made about PiCo's statement?

Do you see why I might feel that I am not on an even playing field? PiCo's statement, with its necessary derogatory inference that Garstang's date was driven by his religious preference rather than archaeological facts, was allowed to stand as relevant to whether the 1400 date is feasible. If the statement had been true, it would indeed have been relevant to anyone who held the 1400 date, Garstang or Wood. But as soon as I offered a citation from a primary source (Garstang's writings) that showed the bias and the error of PiCo's statement, we are told that the whole thing is irrelevant.

PiCo then asked that I supply in a dialogue what I think is a proper entry in this matter. In the first place, the citation of Leon Wood is not proper unless the main text points out the principal points made by Leon Wood on this matter, the first of which is that Garstang did not derive his date from the Bible, but from stratigraphic, pottery, and historical considerations; the same points made in my original entry. In this, Leon Wood cited Garstang's writings, since he is a reputable scholar and knows the importance of primary references. He also concluded that Kenyon's case for a 1550 date was not conclusive, and that the 1400 date was still a plausible choice. Should this be put in? It wasn't I that introduced Leon Wood. If he is to be cited, a fair and concise summary should be given of what he said.

Leon Wood, however, is a secondary source. He cites primary sources; why then not go to the primary source? This is what I did in my original correction to PiCo's erroneous and biased entry. It was then erased by PiCo as "irrelevant, tedentious". His unreferenced wrong entry was then put back in. Doug, do you agree with these kind of proceedings? Excuse me for saying so, but I have the feeling that if I did anything like that, I would be in danger of the Wikipedia editor as calling me biased. Please assure me that this is an unfounded concern.

I therefore supply the following as the proper entry on the matter of how Garstang arrived at his date. It is the original entry that I made, with proper citation of a primary source, intended to correct PiCo's biased, unreferenced entry, and which PiCo, using the same tactics he has used for the last 11 plus months on this site, undid without supplying any reference or valid reason for the replacement; his entry went back to the original Wikipedia-rules-defying entry he originally made.

Therefore I supply again my entry, with the comment that to deem this matter irrelevant will just look like an attempt to squelch honest scholarship when it does not agree with the biases of one or more of the current participants in this discussion. I also feel that I am at risk of having a negative comment placed on my own user page if I continue to point out PiCo's blatant misuse of his editing priviliges starting with his very first entry and continuing up to the present time. My entry:

In the 1920s, John Garstang determined, based on two considerations and independently of the biblical chronology, that the destruction of Jericho must have occurred near the end of the Late Bronze Age, that is, about 1400 BC.[1] These two considerations were first that the Late Bronze Age was the time in which large walled cities flourished in Canaan, and archaeology had already determined that this was not true in the centuries after 1400. The second consideration was that a list of Canaanite cites listed in the book of Joshua matched the mention of these cities in the annals of pharaohs of Egypt's 18th Dynasty, "more particularly in the records covering the hundred years between the conquests of Thutmose III and the decline of the Empire under Akhenaten, 1475-1375."[2] After making these observations, Garstang noted that this happened to be in agreement with the Bible's chronological note in 1 Kings 6:1, but this was entirely secondary as far as he was concerned; in biblical interpretation he followed the doctrines of Julius Wellhausen, popular in Garstang's day, that theorized that the Bible's historical accounts were written at a much later date than the events described and thus were not completely trustworthy. Later, Garstang's excavations at Jericho in the early 1930s unearthed a destruction layer corresponding to the termination of City IV which was in agreement with the date of ca. 1400 that he had earlier postulated, and which he therefore identified with the biblical story of Joshua. This date was therefore derived by archaeological considerations from Canaan and from Egyptian historical records. It was not derived from the Bible and then imposed on archaeology, as is occasionally stated by those who have not read Garstang's own writings on the subject.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Now that I've answered these questions put to me, I'd like PiCo to answer the 12 questions I put to him. Doug, if you feel these questions are unfair, let me know. I would be curious myself to have your answer on what PiCo did in these 12 incidences is appropriate. Consider the 12th question: it should be easy to answer if PiCo wasn't just doing the kind of thing he has done for the last 11 months: unsubstantiated statements, detrimental to the character and scholarly integrity of Bryant Wood, apparently feeling quite secure that nobody in Wikipedia was going to call him to task for this or for the way he has dominated this site for the last year.

I think I have answered the questions put to me. The grievousness of the offences committed on this article over the last 11 months have called for someone to point them out clearly. Why has no one else done so? I would not have to be so plain if the Wikipedia editor had observed earlier what was going on, and if that same editor was impartial. As it is, I feel in the place of a whisteblower, and I know that when someone gets caught in improper practices, the tendency is to shoot the whisteblower.

Question for Doug: will this happen here? Also, do you think that PiCo's actions, defined in my 12 questions, entitle him to keep editing this article?

Question for PiCo: why haven't you answered my 12 questions? In the 12th one, for instance, you slurred the character of Bryant Wood: either come up with a reference for your statement, or we will have to conclude that this is just another example of what has been going on ever since you saw fit to put your biases into this page.

It is not necessarily bias to correct a wrong statement and offer proper citations, which is what I have been trying to do. If someone has a proper citation to counter such a correction, let it be offered.

With concern about the equity of what has happenered here, and realizing what commonly happens to whistleblowers,

Chronic2 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop discussion of other editors and focus on the article
This really must stop. This talk page has become almost impossible to read if you are interested in the article and not the editors, and I will be doing something about that. Assume good faith is a core guideline of Wikipedia editing. The article is about Wood, not Jericho, not Garstang, and a long paragraph on Garstang is not appropriate. I will add here that the 2 sentences "This date was therefore derived by archaeological considerations from Canaan and from Egyptian historical records. It was not derived from the Bible and then imposed on archaeology, as is occasionally stated by those who have not read Garstang's own writings on the subject." are original research and would not be appropriate in the article in any case. Chronic2, you are new here and really need to read our policies and guidelines. You ask why I use Wood and don't go to the primary source? Because that would be against official core policy (not just a guideline), WP:OR, which says "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Is that clear? We were all new once, so that's understandable, but please start reading about OR, good faith, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)