User talk:David Rohl

Doug Weller (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)David, in principle Yahoo mailing lists can't be used as sources (I've run into this problem), and there is the conflict of interest over your editing this. I'll raise it (the mailing list question, not conflict of interest on the Reliable sources notice board as it is an interesting case. I was annoyed when I couldn't use a Usenet post from the late David Fasold to make clear an opinion of his that he expressed just before he died. There are times I'd like to use mailing lists, especially when it's a list I know -- like Cami's. I've raised the question here: You might want to take part in the discussion.

Blocked
David, I'm sure you know you are blocked under your IP address, and until that expires you shouldn't be editing. I hope when you come back you realise that everyone isn't your enemy. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is easy for you to say that but you have continued to censor my responses to the heavy anti-Rohl bias in this Rohl article which have been raised from the very start of this discussion page. You are not even conforming to your own rules and policies by choosing to add bogus references, which make me wonder why you ignore so easily the second box on the discussion page. Your response is to block the subject of the article who is trying his best to get rid of the misinformation and bias on the page. If people like aunty-whatever-her-name-is keep reverting inaccurate statements (plus their equally dubious references) then what am I supposed to do? I am, instructed under the Wiki rules for the subject of biographical articles, to make changes to material about me and my work which I deem inaccurate or misleading, but you guys just keep right on reinstating them. This article is patently biased and you should be doing all you can to rectify this situation by keeping the changes I am making as the knowledgeable and well-informed subject of the article. I have never added anything here which is not true and accurate but that does not seem to matter to you.David Rohl (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * David, I'd like to repeat Doug's suggestion that you calm down. I'm somewhat surprised that this became a critical issue for you & you never contacted me about it, because I would have tried to help as much as I could. (Although I have your biographical article watchlisted, since exchanging email with you, I've moved on to work on articles relating to Ethiopia: at the time that part of Wikipedia was in worse shape than the Egyptological topics.) No one who is an established editor at Wikipedia wants inaccuracies in an article. Let's work together & see if we can fix these problems. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch. I could not e-mail you because I don't see an 'e-mail me' on your user page. And I can't work with you to get this article right because I am blocked and censored from making any changes that remove false statements and unsupported/verified comments. See below. By the way, you wonder why I am pissed about this? Try losing your book contracts and all your related sources of income to keep you going (and your house) because of articles like this which conform to the establishment status quo and paint my research as bordering on loony fringe. Kitchen (with support from sites such as Wikipedia and the Christian Fundamentalist organisations) did a great job in squashing the New Chronology and my reputation along with it, based on nothing more than smear tactics and dogmatic rejection without proper scholarly foundation. How would you feel? David Rohl (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look over at the far left of my user page at the column that has "Main page" at the top, & work your way down to "E-mail this user". Click on it, & you'll come to a form where you can fill out an email, then send it. -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You're blocked as user:83.41.235.163, I believe. So I've blocked this account too. The same person editing under a different account while blocked counts as block evasion. If you want to discuss this, please do so here. And to point out the obvious: you have a WP:COI at the DR article. You cannot make controversial edits to that article *at all*. You can (when unblocked) raise any problems with it at the WP:BLP noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it a conflict of interest to remove false and inaccurate statements about yourself in a Wiki article? You have a policy for subject contributors which specifically allows them to remove inaccuracies and false statements do you not?David Rohl (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's not obvious to everyone that something is false or inaccurate. You can try presenting things as clearly as possible as suggested here, to make it easier for more editors to get involved in the discussion; usually the more people involved, the more neutral the result. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which policy you are referring to. Have you taken the time to look at WP:COI? Speaking as William Connolley I can tell you that I have William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have read it and there is no conflict of interest as am not promoting myself or any of the other no noes. I did read:

Non-controversial edits ... Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.

Have you read Wiki's BLP policy? To quote:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, ... We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

and:

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. ... Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. ... Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.

and:

Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP [THAT'S ME!]; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. ... The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. [BUT YOU APPLIED IT]

and most relevantly:

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article [AGAIN THAT'S ME] ... In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.

You don't appear to know any of this. You certainly have not followed these guidelines. And you are quite mistaken that a subject of an article automatically constitutes a conflict of interest if he edits the page about him. The quotes above make it very clear that you are in the wrong.David Rohl (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I'm a bit of a noob. Still I get to have an opinion. In this case, my opinion is that if you were edit-warring over that page, then that by definition makes your edits controversial. Because, you see, they have caused a controversy. It really is that simple William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the BLP policy applies to biographical material, not works by the subject. If it did apply for instance to a subject's books, it would effectively give the subject immunity from 3RR for any edits about their works as opposed to stuff that is purely biographical (so long as the edits concerning their works don't contain attacks on the person of course). Obviously this isn't cut and dried, but it doesn't allow edit-warring with immunity either. I don't understand why anyone would question that a person has a conflict of interest if they edit an article about themselves. I note there's no block template, I've added one. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, David Rohl. I'm sorry about the frustrations you're experiencing. I've read your comment at Talk:David Rohl, and will try to find time to get involved in editing that page. Wikipedia pages are of course supposed to be balanced and neutral, per WP:NPOV. Sometimes it takes a lot of work and discussion to get them there, and even then there can be differing opinions as to what is neutral.
 * If you yourself have posted a statement in an email list and you want that statement used as a reference, you might consider posting the statement directly on your own website, perhaps in the form of an article. It might become more usable as a reference by Wikipedia. I didn't notice what that reference was about; however, that sort of self-published reference would only be usable for certain particular types of fact, such as establishing what your opinion is. (See WP:SELFPUB). Alternatively, you could get the fact published in some other (non-self-published) source, subject to editorial review or peer review, and then it would be even more solid as a reference to cite here.
 * There are many statements in Wikipedia for which no references are given. No reference is needed for things like "Paris is the capital of France". For things that only people familiar with a subject would know, people might challenge these statements, and if they're challenged, then usually a reference must be given. However, if someone goes around and challenges a lot of random unreferenced facts in many articles, they would probably be asked to stop. Such challenging should be reasonable: only if the person really questions whether it's true and thinks the article would be improved by removing it.
 * In future, you might try getting assistance at noticeboards such as WP:COIN and WP:BLPN. (The related policies/guidelines are WP:COI and WP:BLP.) or article-content RfC WP:RfC. The way you express your message may have an effect on how it's received (although in theory that shouldn't matter; we're all human after all). Feel free to ask me for help preparing a post (if I have time; I'm usually only available here on weekends these days). You can post to my talk page or email me. To email you have to put your own email address in your preferences and reply by email to confirm it, and then when you go to the userpage or usertalkpage of a user who also has email enabled, in the list of links at the left of the page (under "Main Page" etc., much further down) you'll see a link "email this user". However, if you tell me about a discussion I might not otherwise know about, I might decide not to participate in that discussion (see WP:CANVASS). If you decide to post to a noticeboard, it's worthwhile taking time to make sure your post is concise, focussed and convincing.  The noticeboards or RfC are not supposed to be over-used.  Lots of things about the procedures on Wikipedia are balanced rather than black-and-white; each situation is judged on its own merits, so you can't assume that if something is done one way in one case that it will be done the same way in a different situation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Note that I am just the person adding the template, not the administrator who did the block. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The person who did the blocking claims to be a newbee and seems not to have read or understood the guidelines about the editing rights of a 'subject'. This gives me no confidence in the Wikipedia process.David Rohl (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry, irony rarely works well online. No, I'm not a noob, I've been around a while William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi, I'm here as a result of a notice at the BLP noticeboard. We have several issues here, and I hope I can help clear up some of them for you! Hopefully this will help you see things from our perspective, and help us to work together more productively. Please ask any questions you may have, I will be watching this page. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We really want the best possble article on you, so we're happy you're here! (even if it doesn't seem that way right now.)
 * 2) You state you are David Rohl, but if you think for a minute, you will see that you could be anyone. We cannot simply take your word for it.
 * 3) We have to abide by our policies, and one of them is to have sourcing which meets our standards. "I say so" does not meet those conditions, even if you're established to be who you claim. What you can do once verified, is ensure false information is removed - but we cannot add content without sourcing.
 * 4) We also have a policy against conflict of interest - we try to have neutral articles, but we don't have CVs.
 * 5) You already know about the WP:3RR policy - this holds for everything except removing vandalism, and BLP violations. Please see WP:VAND for what we consider vandalism, and WP:BLP for what constitues BLP violations - I can save you time there, its usually really obvious.

Thank you. Very constructive.

Please can you provide one general clarification which lies at the heart of this whole issue.

The article is about me and my work. I am therefore the 'subject'. The guidelines on BLPs, as I read them, state that a subject is permitted to remove (without hesitation and discussion) any statement or reference which in his view is poorly sourced or of dubious origin. Am I right about this? If so, when I remove such offending contributions, why are they instantly reverted? Who is doing the warring here? Why am I blocked and not the other party who continually reverts the subject's amendments? Does the three reverts rule apply to the 'subject' or not? The guidelines appear to say not. In my opinion there is no neutrality being displayed in this instance when editors remove information supplied by the 'subject' to counteract misleading and erroneous comments about his work published here by unqualified contributors who source fundamentalist web sites and books, the guiding principles of which are that God wrote the Bible and it is therefore infallible. Such references surely constitute a dubious source? I need to know what I am allowed to do and what I am not by way of editing. And I need to know if the BLP guidelines I have mentioned have been interpreted correctly by me.

Thanks.David Rohl (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You might also want to read the advice I give at User:Coppertwig/Unblocking about how to request to be unblocked. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * state that a subject is permitted to remove (without hesitation and discussion) any statement or reference which in his view is poorly sourced or of dubious origin - not sure what you are reading. I don't find the word "hesitation" anywhere in WP:BLP. Do you refer to should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion? In which case, be aware that there is no special priviledge to the subject there: that guidance applies to everyone William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Including the subject or excluding the subject? I am not asking for any special privileges - just the right to do what the rules/guidelines state.David Rohl (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (afer ec) Including, remembering that we prefer the subject not edit his or her own article - although we don't prohibit it as a general rule. Please note:

Perhaps if you list, one at a time, the items you feel should be removed "per BLP" here then we can discuss them. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard Dawkins removed membership in a group from his article; we confirmed identity and the removal stood (some article said he'd been a member, so it was sourced, but the article was wrong) He did not attempt to remove any controversy or negative views of him or his works; he did not edit the article extensively. That was one minor factual correction.
 * Wikipedia has been known to block or ban individuals from editing their own articles, or even from the entire site; usually due to tendentious editing or attempting to whitewash their own articles.
 * Removing content "per BLP" must meet certain criteria. It must be poorly sourced. It is generally negative or personal information. Negative, well sourced information is not removed per BLP. The idea is to try to prevent attack pages or smears, not to write hagiographys.


 * Hi again, David Rohl. By the way, I'm not an administrator but I'm an experienced Wikipedian.  I'm giving you my understanding of policy.  The various policies and guidelines need to be understood in relation to each other.  The BLP policy is generally telling ordinary editors what to do, not giving advice to the subject of an article.  When you're the subject of an article, you need to temper the BLP policy with the COI guideline.  I don't see the BLP policy as saying what you say it says.  I think it says editors (not meaning the subject of the article specifically) can or should remove material which is (not just which is in that editor's view) unsourced etc.
 * You're considered to have a COI as the subject of the article. I would suggest that you at least follow WP:BRD: that is, if you do an edit and someone reverts it, I suggest not re-reverting back, but discussing it on the talk page.  If your edit is clearly an improvement, you should be able to convince others.  Note that uninvolved editors may not have a lot of time to read complicated arguments; this is why I suggest it's important to write concise, focussed arguments.  See User:Coppertwig.
 * I've made some edits to the article. I hope they're improvements.  We welcome your input; you're obviously an expert on the subject of yourself.  However, other points of view also need to be represented per NPOV.  Ideally, the article will be in a form that everyone can accept.  This is done by avoiding asserting things as fact if they're controversial, but just asserting that someone has made that claim, and also providing balancing information about counter-claims.
 * It might be interesting to add information to the article about how belief in God fits in. I don't know anything about the topic; maybe you could supply information.  It would all have to be supported by sources.  I mean, if it's relevant that certain researchers base their theories on the truth of the Bible, then perhaps that should be stated in the article (but only if sources are found presenting that information in relation to the topic: see WP:SYN.)
 * All the best. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My answer to your question: I would say including the subject, but balanced and tempered by the COI guideline, and subject to any limitations or advice in that guideline. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: the BLP guideline is referring more to information about a person. Talking about a person's work is more like the  ordinary information in any scholarly article.  That is, the BLP guideline applies just as much (or as little) to a statement about Kitchen's work in the David Rohl article, as to a statement about your own work in the same article.  The BLP guideline is more for more personal statements.  For example, if an article says that someone was divorced, or was charged with a crime, or something.  Not so much about ordinary scholarly discourse. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. For example, if Coppertwig were a well known botanist, and had an article, and there was a good bit about his books and studies of unusual Iris, along with a heated debate about the etymology of one particular Iris, etc... none of this is BLP. Then the article states that Coppertwig has fathered 4 illegitimate children, on 4 different grad students working with him. That content must be removed, and can be removed by anyone, as many times as necessary, until and unless very strong sourcing is found. Do you see the difference? (Btw, Coppertwig, what were you thinking?) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This I do not agree with. My work/research is open to proper criticism - of course - but inaccuracies and poor sourcing which reflect badly on the reputation and career of an individual can ruin that person's life. I have first hand experience of this (as did Galileo and countless others). Surely such damaging comments sourced from dubious web articles which have been rebutted by good scholars on the same BGA website constitute contentious editing? Once the criticisms of van der Land's article started coming in, the BGA editors (including van der Land) closed the doors to the critical responses. Once you take opinions from a non-specialist such as van der Land, who is not an Egyptologist nor a Levantine archaeologist nor an Assyriologist, you invite all and sundry to be sources for criticism - even nutters and rank amateurs. So I assume I can add a statement to say that van der Land's criticisms have been dismissed by Dr Peter van der Veen (PhD in archaeology) and Bob Porter (MA in archaeology)? And so it goes on. Please read their responses at the referenced web site and perhaps you will see that the reference to van der Land is a very poor one and should be removed in line with Wiki editorial policy.

And I am puzzled about this Wiki guideline:

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.

Has my ability to understand the English language deserted me? Am I entitled to remove poorly sourced and damaging material or not?David Rohl (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I reverted one of my edits to the article.  I'm not an expert in this field and I don't know anything about whether that web page is a reliable source or not.
 * The advice about taking a "tolerant attitude" is advice for us, the people responding to you, not advice for you. When we try to be tolerant, it might not necessarily come across that way to you, because we're seeing things from different points of view.
 * If the material is damaging because it's a false statement about you, that's one thing. But if the material says that someone made a statement criticizing you, and they did in fact make that statement, then the Wikipedia article is not making a false claim.  Ordinary editing rules and, in your case, the COI guideline apply then, not BLP.  If it's discussing whether your theory is right or not, that's not really talking about you; it's talking about chronology and stuff, so again BLP doesn't apply.
 * You may not necessarily be allowed to remove all material that in your opinion is poorly sourced and damaging. A lot depends on whether others agree with that. Also: there's a difference between poorly sourced as in the Wikipedia article is saying something that might not be true because the source is weak, and poorly sourced as in the Wikipedia article chooses to correctly quote someone who actually did say something, but they're not very notable in the field; the latter would probably not require urgent deletion.  In general, rather than repeatedly reverting it's probably a good idea to ask for help at the BLP noticeboard if there's a damaging statement about yourself you think should be urgently deleted.  I hope this helps answer your question. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) Regarding "remove poorly sourced and damaging material or not" - yes, with limitations. I have no intention of trying to figure out what BGA is, who van der Land is, and what you consider "the referenced web site". Please be specific in what you want removed and why. I'm a volunteer, not paid staff, and I'm not going to do research because you're too rushed or lazy or something to explain what you're talking about. I will help all I can; you must be helpful to me in order for me to be able to do anything for you. I suggest as well that you learn and embrace brevity. TL; DR is a common response here. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) You may not make controversial edits to your own page, because of WP:COI. Furthermore, you may not violate WP:3RR. If you believe that there are serious problems with the material on that page, you need to take this to WP:BLPN where you will receive a sy,pathetic hearing, if you restrict yourself to discussing the problematic text itself rather than wikipedia policy. If you are interested in discussing the BLP policy, then t:WP:BLP may be the correct place. If you will promise to leave the DR article alone for the duration of your block, I can unblock you so you can begin this discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: As far as I recollect, once blocked for the first time, I did not make any edits to the article text using my account. What I did was, having found my login name and password (through trial and error) I replied to the discussion page because editors were asking me for confirmation that I was David Rohl. I was not aware that the block included the discussion page. I believe that your blocking has been both unfair and unproductive, given that there are questions being asked of me and discussions about changes to the article which require my input.David Rohl (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you learn to use the indent stuff (colons?) It makes things much easier to follow. People generally think they shouldn't be blocked. As I've said elsewhere on this page, if you'll promise to leave the article alone for the duration of your block, I'll unblock you and you can contribute to the talk page. Bear in mind that you have displayed various misapprehensions as to the rules here; I strongly advise you, once you are unblocked or your block expires, not to edit the DR page (though the talk page is fine) until you have worked out what the rules are, rather than what you think they ought to be. Otherwise you risk being blocked again William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: Given that you William are the blocker in this case and that you accuse me of having "displayed various misapprehensions [sic] as to the rules here", do you think you could be specific about which rules I have broken regarding COI and BLP? I have read both and see no conflict of interest in correcting, deleting or counter arguing contentious statements which are poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Indeed I read that editors can do precisely that. And I have your colleagues saying that "yes' I may do that "with limitations" (KillerChihuahua) and that such edits can include "the subject, but balanced and tempered by the COI guideline, and subject to any limitations or advice in that guideline" (Coppertwig). So which guidlines in COI did I infringe please? Your clarification would be much appreciated. I await your judgement with 'various misapprehensions'.David Rohl (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've told you this several times, as have others, so I'm not sure how to make it any clearer: you have a WP:COI with respect to the DR article. I expected you to follow the links but maybe that is hard: you should have ended up at Autobiography, and It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should generally let others do the writing... Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself... In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. . However, you weren't blocked for that: as I said: you (as the IP) were blocked for 3RR and incivilty William M. Connolley (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I have not edited the article since you blocked me.David Rohl (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well of course you haven't. You are blocked: you can't William M. Connolley (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: Let's not try to be so clever. You know very well that your second blocking was because I contributed to the discussion page whilst being blocked by you for reverting reverts in the article, and that at that time - before you blocked me again - I did not edit the article page. As I said before, I was not aware that blocking covered the discussion page and I was confirming that I was the author (having been asked to do so) of the original edits deleting the poor references and their linked statements. And you really have not made anything clear to me. You have not explained to me how I have breached the guidelines for COI. You have just made the blanket statement that contributions by the subject are in breach of the COI guidelines. However, other guidelines contradict this and I see no specific COI guidline which I have breached. Please quote one that deals with removing or correcting poor sourcing rather than offering only generalisations. You refer to other contributors here explaining it to me - but they, in fact, have said that I am entitled to do just that. Perhaps someone else here can help William to find the relevant breach of COI rules? David Rohl 15:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No: you were blocked (for 3RR and incivility) as DR because you and the IP were the same person, and you're not allowed to edit while blocked. What you were editing at that point was irrelevant. Please: you really don't know what the rules are here or how things work. Stop trying to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, it is impolite William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I echo KillerChihuahua's comment: I couldn't find what you were referring to by "BGA editors". You said "So I assume I can add a statement to say that van der Land's criticisms have been dismissed by Dr Peter van der Veen (PhD in archaeology) and Bob Porter (MA in archaeology)?"  If you have sources for it, I suppose you can! (22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC))  You can post the sources here on this talk page.  If the sources are not available online, it may help to post here quotes from them.  I got the impression in your comment above that there were comments by others posted on the same website as the van der Land article; maybe I misunderstood that, but anyway I didn't find them.  You could give a link if there's something like that online somewhere.  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, sorry. I may have advised you wrong there. You can suggest material to go into the article, on the article talk page when you're unblocked, or here now, but I'm not sure whether or not you can put that type of material directly into the article yourself.  See the COI guideline and William M. Connolley's instructions to you above. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
DR: Okay, there is a lot to respond to here.

(a) What is the understanding of poorly sourced material? When an editor adds a statement and then references a web site that is written by a non-specialist in the field with no training or experience in the subject and who holds that God wrote the Bible unerringly, then I have a problem with that. That is a poor source and permits anyone in the world, no matter how crazy or uninformed, to be verification of the editor's statement. The editor should surely be obliged, if making such statements, to source a bonifide expert in the subject. In other words the reference should be to the original scholarly critique and not the hearsay. Otherwise you could have a hospital cleaner as the source for a newspaper report on the work and reputation of a brain surgeon in the same hospital. Statements by editors should be supported by reliable references, otherwise they surely constitute poor sourcing.

The reference/link to the criticisms of van der Land's article are at: http://www.bga.nl/en/discussion/ paragraphs three and four.

Coppertwig wrote: "The advice about taking a "tolerant attitude" is advice for us, the people responding to you, not advice for you." But that is what I am saying. The advice to you is that when a subject removes a statement because, in his view, it is "controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and it "must be removed immediately", then where is the tolerance in reverting that statement? The fact is that the editors (Doug Weller and Coppertwig) have now removed that source reference because it is now recognised to be dubious.

The issue for me is not whether Wiki is making a false claim but that Wiki editors have an obligation to reference reliable sources for tendentious statements. When I came to look at this article a week ago, there wasn't a single scholarly reference to any of the statements. The references that were there were from amateurs on web sites who indulge in hearsay and opinion, not references to original critiques. Doug Weller and Coppertwig, I believe, have both recognised that now with regard to van der Land.

Doug, please do the same with the reference you made to the two evangelical writers regarding the Shoshenk/Shishak question as they are both amateurs in the field and merely have an unverified opinion with no explanation for that opinion. Your verification employs hearsay which is unverifiable. Your term 'others' in 'Others consider this unconvincing' cannot mean the hospital cleaning lady and American Bible Belt amateur Egyptologists, it surely has to imply 'other Egyptologists or specialists in the field'. That is how people will understand it. Can you not find a reference from a legitimate scholar in the field?

And, by the way, when the article states "Most Egyptologists accept Shishaq as an alternative name for Shoshenq I" are you sure that the three references you added to verify this statement are Egyptologists? I do not believe so.

Finally, if all these problems are arising out of the fact that a biography page is getting bogged down in New Chronology theory arguments, why don't you take the advice of both Rd232 and Cush (see Reboot in the article discussion page) and separate the biography of DR from the New Chronology theory? If you want more info for the former I can supply. If you mention what I have written, by all means say it is controversial (for it surely is) but leave the opinions of 'others' out of the piece. Then you can have a proper discourse on the rights and wrongs of the NC on its own page where proper references to legitimate critiques can be made (if you think you can find them).

Thank you all for your input.David Rohl (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 'Most Egyptologists' is probably too restrictive, maybe we should say academics instead, as it isn't just Egyptologists who can be considered experts here. Wilson certainly says he combined Egyptology with Biblical studies. Maybe we can find better references also. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: That is acceptable to me.David Rohl (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We are being tolerant; we have not (yet) banned you from editing your own article at all.
 * TL; DR. Please pick ONE change you wish to make, and discuss it. Do not write essays.
 * Ending a long list of complaints and desired changes with "that is acceptable to me" is pissing on people's toes. It is what you want. Of course its "acceptable" to you. But we're not here to make you happy or pander to your demands. You seem very confused about that. You seem, shall I say, arrogant. Learn to work with your fellow editors, not make high-handed demands of them, and you will find things go much more smoothly. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: I really do not understand this. Why is it pissing on anyone's toes to say that the immediately preceding and recent suggestion made by Doug Weller to change Egyptologists to academics and to look for a better reference is acceptable to me ? Is there somehow a language problem here? In what way is that arrogant? It is not a high-handed demand to expect reasonable sources for statements. It is entirely in line with the Wiki guidlines on sources.David Rohl 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not: its a bit arrogant to use the phrasing "this would be acceptable to me" - we're not trying to placate you. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: Come on killer. The words 'this is acceptable to me' are not arrogant. The English language is rich and wonderful, and there is more than one way to say 'okay, I agree'. David Rohl 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dealing with just one issue, I thought everyone had said that conflict of interest prevents you from editing your article unless someone says something poorly sourced or damaging about you personally. You are suggesting that our BLP policy gives you the right to edit anything at all relating to your works, and that is not the case. There is always the BLP notice board where people will give you help if they think that you are being treated unfairly, as well as the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: You think everyone has said that COI prevents me from editing my article. KillerChihuahua is hopefully going to answer that, but others have already said not. Especially with your stipulation. I am claiming that there are poorly sourced statements here. I have said what they are and you have agreed about one of them. I cannot contribute to the article talk page as I am still blocked beyond the deadline which was set.David Rohl 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your block expires at 16:40 William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here: BLP and COI. Poorly sourced defamatory information being removed is BLP: you editing your own article is COI. What is your question, please? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: Okay, the question. You say "We are being tolerant; we have not (yet) banned you from editing your own article at all." Does editing my own article breach COI or not?David Rohl 16:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: Then please rewrite the guidlines that say otherwise. David Rohl 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: William, this is getting us nowhere. Please can you explain to me how we go to arbitration on the issue of whether a subject is permitted or not permitted to edit the article about him. Let us see what other people think is the correct interpretation of the COI and BLP guidlines. Your assistance in this matter would be much appreciated. David Rohl 20:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your eyes are not even open yet. You need to find someone competent that you trust, and ask them for advice. Meanwhile, you might care to browse WP:DR for interests sake William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I believe he prefers to be addressed as "Dr. Connolley", although he has also said he can be called "WMC". Anybody is free to call me "Coppertwig" or reasonable nicknames or abbreviations such as "Copper", "Cu-Twig", "CT", etc. How do you prefer to be addressed, David Rohl?
 * See dispute resolution. Not the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee; that's for disputes that people have already tried extensively to solve in other dispute resolution forums, and it would be inappropriate to take this dispute there now. My advice to you (which you don't necessarily have to follow) is to just follow the instructions of WMC, who is a Wikipedian administrator, at least for a period of time during which you learn more about how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines work in practice and demonstrate your ability to apply them, to cooperate with other users and to contribute constructively.  If you have the time and inclination, it may help to edit articles on other subjects to gain experience in dealing with how to apply the policies and guidelines in practice.  I think there's an aspect to it that can't really be explained, it has to be experienced; I've tried to explain it by saying that things aren't black-and-white.  After that, (or immediately, if you prefer) if you would like someone to intervene between you and WMC, I suggest that you post a question at the WP:COIN noticeboard.  On Wikipedia, a question won't have one yes-or-no answer that applies in all situations.  The answer will depend on the situation.  Also, different editors may have different answers.  A question at a noticeboard like that will be answered by the editors who happen to respond to it, and a consensus among them usually develops.  If you wait until you've demonstrated ability to edit productively before asking, I think you're more likely to get an answer in your favour than if you ask now, when you've recently been blocked for editwarring.
 * Killerchihuahua: I understand your reaction to David Rohl's saying he would accept something; but I think it's best to let things like that slide. David Rohl is a Wikipedian editor as well as the subject of the article, and has a right to express his opinion about whether he supports or opposes various versions of article text, which is what he was doing.  I think I had said above that ideally we would eventually arrive at a version of the article that everyone can accept; I see his comment as a step forward in such a consensus process. David Rohl, your input is welcome.  The final article may not look the way it would look if you wrote it yourself alone: it will be a cooperative effort expressing multiple viewpoints, but I hope we can arrive at a version everyone finds acceptable. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: Once again very balanced and constructive, Thank you CT. I personally don't mind either David or DR as my 'tag'. What I am finding frustrating here is that I have suggested changes on the discussion page - being informed by an administrator that I cannot contribute to or correct the article directly – and yet there has neither been a response to the suggestions nor any editing by those permitted to do so to remove unsourced/unverifiable statements or poorly sourced statements. I am not trying to promote myself here - just trying to get the article to be neutral, balanced and accurate, with statements/opinions not sourced to non-authorities. I really did think that those were the laudable aims of Wiki as outlined in the guidlines. Am I really so wrong about that? David Rohl 08:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno where CT gets the "Dr Connolley" bit. William is fine, if we're being friendly. WMC is shorter. And while we're on names, beginning your comments with "DR" is unusual (I used to put my sig at the start of comments but eventually had it beaten out of me). As to the substance: if there is stuff on David Rohl you don't like, your first stop is the talk page. Don't be impatient, unless there is stuff that is sufficiently serious to invoke WP:BLP, which from a quick scan I couldn't see. Your curious use of indentation makes your comments there hard to read, and you have raised any number of points, which is confusing. My suggestion would be to clearly and briefly identify the single most problematic piece of text in a new section and attempt to get that fixed. Actually, that isn't quite true: my main suggestion would be that being involved in your own biog is deeply painful and best avoided entirely because you are disadvantaged in the editing process; but that is your choice William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: The reason I have taken to putting my initials at the head of a comment is twofold. First, I myself find it difficult working out who is speaking without scrolling down to the bottom of the comment. So I am trying to be helpful to others in a similar position. Second, when the discussion has been complicated by inserted answers in someone else's message to avoid summary repetitions, it is much easier to see who is saying what. Just for practicalities sake. I wouldn't comprehend any Wiki etiquette for not doing this as I can't really see who it would offend or why.


 * My response to your second point is very simple. Who would make the corrections to inaccurate statements and poor or un-authoratative references if I don't do it? Nobody had done so in years with the David Rohl article - in my view because the knowledge of the principal contributors has not been of a high enough level to recognise the problems. Several Wiki readers have also commented on the bias and lack of neutrality. I do recognise that Wiki is not produced by a team of academics as is the norm with other encyclopedias. But it has become far more influential than any of them. So the writers and editors (as the guidlines clearly state) need to up their game to ensure that misrepresentation does not occur and in order to prevent mistakes being enshrined in popular culture. I do realise this is hard, which is why I think Wikipedia should surely take advantage of the expertise and knowledge of 'subjects' rather than trying to make their lives so difficult. The advantages in terms of accuracy and improvement to content far outway any potential threat of bias or self-promotion which can easily be removed by other editors. As to specific edits, I have made a number of suggestions, two of which have been taken up.. But with a rewrite pending on the new NC page, it is probably best to see what happens with this before reviewing the content for inaccuracies or poor sourcing. David Rohl 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the first sentence of WMC's comment of 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC): I'm not sure, but I think he just means that you're very new here and that there's a big learning curve for figuring out how to get along on Wikipedia. It took me many months to kindof settle in, and I'm still learning.  One of the problems is that with online text-only communication, there's no tone of voice or facial expression, so people jump to conclusions about the tone of other people's messages and often interpret things as more hostile than they are.  We have to make allowances for that in order to avoid escalation leading to real hostility.  Another problem is that we're in this computer environment that's new, or with many situations that are new to people, and people make different assumptions about how things ought to be done (often based on which side of a situation they're on).
 * It might be helpful for you, David, to read WP:Talk page.
 * Re starting your posts with "DR": It might be better instead to avoid inserting posts between other peoples' paragraphs. I have no problem with the "DR".  It confused me for the first few seconds only.  I used a similar system at Talk:Norman Wengert. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, I've been on Wikipedia longer than any of you (& probably longer than all of you put together), & I'm still learning how to get along on Wikipedia. (One trick is to be patient: impatient people, whether they are right or wrong, tend to have very short careers on Wikipedia.) But returning to the original point, speaking for myself I don't have a problem with a subject editting an article about her/himself as long as the edit is not controversial. One example is adding the date of birth: there's the presumption that the subject would be accurate & objective about this fact -- as well as that something like this would be otherwise difficult to obtain. Another example is if personal information was added to the article which should not be there (like a home address). I don't think anyone would fault a subject for immediately removing that information, but I would hope that the next step would be to alert the folks associated with WP:BLP, because they can take further steps to not only clean it from Wikipedia but possibly deal with the person responsible for adding it. In all other cases, it's best to start with the Talk page & be specific. In short, aways use common sense in these cases. Occasionally you'll encounter someone with an odd interpretation of policy which conflicts with what appears to be reasonable, but in those cases handle the matter as you would with a problem with a purchase from a store: be polite yet firm, know exactly what you want & what is possible to get, & never be afraid to look for a way to escalate the matter if necessary. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * However, and I'm not trying to be controversial, even a birthdate may be challenged - I've heard it whispered that actors, male and female, sometimes aren't exactly truthful about their age, and I've certainly seen qualifications challenged on BLP articles, so don't be surprised or upset if someone does ask for a reference, or reword something sourced from your website to say 'according to David Rohl', or whatever. It happens and it's correct. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(resetting indent) You can only be controversial if someone disagrees with you, DW, & I don't disagree with you that much on that point. It all depends on the subject & the information. (Look at the flameover over Ann Coulter's age, a heated discussion which made it to WP:LAME.) Unless someone can provide evidence that a given subject is vain about her/his age, for example, I'm willing to assume good faith about this. However, if someone seriously challenges the statement -- any statement, not just birthdates -- then we need to investigate more thoroughly & provide sources, no matter who provides the information. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. Thought I had done it. David Rohl 18:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry: SineBot is just a bot, an automated process. You can generally recognize those because their names usually end in "bot".
 * However, there is a problem: your signature contains your name, but not a link to your user page or talk page.  Apparently SineBot is not recognizing your signature as a valid signature.  (It's also possibly that once you put five tildes by mistake instead of four, which puts just the time but not your name.)  It's possible that you had gone into "preferences" (a link at the top right of the page) and clicked "raw signature".  If so, then unclicking it would be one way to fix the problem.  Regardless of how SineBot reacts, having a signature with no link to your user or talk page is inconvenient for other users and I would appreciate it if you would fix that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: I think I have found the problem. I had checked the signature box in preferences. Sorry. Hopefully that will now come out right.David Rohl (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, it looks right now! Thanks!  That checkbox in the preferences is if you want to put a "raw signature".  In other words, you would type in something like " David Rohl (talk) " or something more complicated, if you want to make a fancy signature.  It's normally expected to contain a link, though: it's very convenient when you want to reply to someone etc. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dougweller
Let's not try to assume the reasons for his mistake; that's one of the ideals behind WP:AGF, we consider the arguments, not the person who made them. Let's just move on with the article & try to make it better. (Although moving the discussion which caused this confusion to the talk page on your biography might help things.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was a stupid mistake and my face is red. I apologise. Dougweller (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I have tried to be civil to you, but you continually to make personal attacks, at times with false accusations(eg saying I claimed you made a third of the edits yesterday when my edit summary said 'a quarter' and accusing me of failing to follow my own standards of editing when you claimed, incorrectly, I was wrong about Colin Wilson). Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DR: I apologised to you about the Colin Wilson matter, just as you apologised concerning your false accusations that I made the first comment on the talk page which was untrue. I now formally apologise without reservation for exaggerating in such a dramatic fashion the percentage that you quoted as the amount of editing I did yesterday. I take back the 8.3333333% extra that I added to the amount you stated. I am baffled by you. Why don't you do what llywrch (talk) said you had decided to do and just walk away for a while so that other people can knock this article into shape? Then please do come back and edit/make your comments/do all your tagging to your hearts content.David Rohl (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You apparently do not understand what you wrote that I considered a personal attack. You wrote "You don't seem to be interested in truth - just censorship." You said I 'freaked out' and that I have an agenda (of course I have an agenda, mine is about Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but that may not be what you meant). Those are the personal attacks, your writing 'third' when I wrote 'quarter' was not a personal attack. It may have been a simple Good Faith mistake, as was my error about the first comment on the talki page, but of course I don't know. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a mind reader. I responded to what you wrote in your first comment here where you talked about false accusations. You did not specify anything about personal attacks. How do you expect to have a proper exchange if you keep moving the goal-posts?David Rohl (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought if you read the links I gave it would be obvious what were the personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, David. Things had been going so much better for a while.  I'm sorry that the situation deteriorated again and I hope you and Dougweller can quickly get back to getting along with each other.
 * This is part of learning how things work on Wikipedia. The code of conduct, particularly including civility, is one of the five pillars.  It's best to "comment on content, not on the contributor": that is, say things about what the article says, what you think the article should say, what the sources say etc. but avoid saying anything about other editors, their behaviour, their motivations, their "approach" etc.  There are times when it makes sense to comment on behaviour (for example, I'm doing so now;  except that I'm not actually saying anything about your behaviour but only giving advice and making suggestions for the future) but I suggest that it may be a good idea for you to avoid doing so at all until you learn more about applying the policies and guidelines in practice.  I think it's rarely a good idea to comment on editor behaviour, motivations etc. on article talk pages, and that user talk pages are a more appropriate place (if such comments are appropriate at all), and that you would be well-advised to be especially careful to avoid such comments when it involves the articles on topics closely related to yourself.
 * While breaches of the civility policy do occur, nevertheless on many Wikipedia pages more experienced editors carry out discussion of quite serious disputes while remaining civil the whole time. I encourage you to join the ranks of those who carefully follow the civility policy.  ".....that setting an example of extremely civil behavior is by far the best way to call someone out for uncivil behavior. The difference will be apparent to anybody looking, and the previously uncivil party will realize that the ball is in their court, to rise to the occasion." (GTBacchus)
 * I don't think Dougweller was asking you to be a mind reader. He said "personal attacks".  I think he expected you to read the policies, carefully re-read what you wrote and find the personal attacks.  He didn't say getting the fraction wrong was the only thing he was complaining about: he said "at times with false accusations...", suggesting that there were some personal attacks without false accusations.
 * If someone gets facts wrong in the article, you can certainly state the correct facts and state that you disagree with the person etc., without saying anything about behaviour. But if people do things you think they shouldn't and you think it's necessary to comment on behaviour, and it involves one of the articles related to yourself, I suggest that it may be better to ask for help from a neutral experienced Wikipedian rather than criticizing the person's behaviour yourself. See WP:DR.
 * It can help to take a break, e.g. for 24 hours, then re-read things from a fresh perspective. It can be hard to see how things look to others (or to objective observers) when we're emotionally caught up in a situation.
 * Good luck. I hope the collaboration on editing the article goes well from now on. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. '' Attacks such as this will not be tolerated. '' KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * David, I think KillerChihuahua is referring to the last part of your comment, i.e. "You really need to read and understand what people write and not invent something entirely different to satisfy your own prejudices. Not very clever for an admin." This is the kind of comment to avoid making. Note that in my long comment to you above, I didn't make any statements about you, your motivations, your abilities, your prejudices etc.  (And we have to avoid even implying things, too.)  "You really need to read and understand what people write" is not acceptable because it implies that the person is not able to read and understand.  "and not invent something entirely different to satisfy your own prejudices" is not acceptable because it implies that the person is purposely inventing things.  Different people have different points of view and that's fine.  We need to work together respectfully nevertheless.  "Not very clever for an admin" is not acceptable because it's a negative statement about a person's intelligence.  People may make mistakes etc. but we don't make comments like that even if they do.  We just correct the mistake if necessary.
 * It may be particularly difficult to remain calm when the article is about yourself or your work. Nevertheless, it's necessary to make the effort and find some way to remain in compliance with the code of conduct. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Coppertwig. And for anyone else reading, the warning from KikkerChihuahua was about personal attacks aimed at another editor, not at me. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Help pages
In case you didn't find them already, some pages with information that may be helpful to you are Biographies of living persons/Help and Biographies of living persons. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig, I have read these advice pages, but the question here is surely whether, having been split from the David Rohl article, this New Chronology article constitutes biographic material or 'articles about yourself'. It is sure being used to question my credibility as a scholar and reputation as an Egyptologist, but does that qualify as BLP?David Rohl (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the BLP policy applies to any statements about any living person, wherever they appear. So it applies to statements about you in the New Chronology article, as well as to statements about other people in both articles. However, as Killerchihuahua and I were explaining above, quoting statements by you about Egyptology isn't really quite the same thing as making statements about you as a person.  Clear as mud?  Getting my point yet about things not being black-and-white around here?  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So on a specific question. If an editor quotes somebody else, who is quoting somebody else, who wrote a private letter in which he said I was '98% rubbish', does that go against BLP guidelines or not?David Rohl (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, wait a second: I don't think they said you were 98% rubbish, but that your theories were, right?
 * Kitchen has a right to publish books saying that your theories are "rubbish" or "nonsense"; that's within the bounds of normal scholarly discourse (though I'm sure it's not pleasant for you). And by the same token, we can quote that.  I don't think it's a BLP issue.
 * However, there may be arguments about whether it's a reliable source (if it's a quote of a quote of a private letter); perhaps the quote I found of Kitchen saying "nonsense" could be used instead.) There may also be arguments about whether it satisfies NPOV:  is that quote a fair representation of the sources overall?  Is quoting that an "impartial tone"?  The contents of quotes don't have to be an "impartial tone" but sometimes even presenting a quote can be going too far, as I thought here, for example.  Personally I think including either the "rubbish" quote (if sufficiently verifiable) or the "nonsense" quote is fine.  However, you can discuss it on the article talk page and try to convince others.  See WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS.  Referring to specific parts of those policies and guidelines can help strengthen your arguments.
 * If there are more favourable published comments on your work, they should be mentioned too. In the two quotes I found, Kitchen is criticizing people who did accept your theories, so perhaps that could be used as verification that there has been some degree of acceptance of your theories, though it would be better to find material written by the people who accepted the theories: could you find that? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be careful with comments like these. At Wikipedia, people don't have to be experts to edit, and the articles are based on sources, not on knowledge of Wikipedians.  So someone basing edits on material about NC is fine; they don't have to have read NC.  (I'm in that category myself).  It's good that some editors who have read NC are involved; if you or the others notice something inaccurate, do point it out; however, you should always be able to do that by making arguments based on reliable sources, not by mentioning the state of another editor's level of knowledge or their approach.  You might want to consider refactoring your comment.  If no-one has replied you can just edit your comment.  If others have replied sometimes it's better to use strikeout like this which you do by putting and before and after  in order to let others see the original context of the replies;  see Talk page guidelines. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Coppertwig for the advice. I will do what you suggest, but the point I am trying to make is that it does actually help to know something about the topic of the article before attacking its premises and quality in the fashion that dab has done here. And editors should not criticise others for bias because they have familiarised themselves with a theory. Incidentally, the exact quote from Kitchen's letter is: "I could have said 'You are ninety-eight per cent rubbish. Go away!'", not your theory is 98% rubbish. And remember that he did make a public apology to me for his remark in front of an audience of hundreds. So how might it be valid to use this here under BLP?David Rohl (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the difficulties you've been having here, and I apologize that I don't have a lot of time to devote to helping straighten things out. Currently the New Chronology (Rohl) page has a quote of Kitchen saying "rubbish", but it's sourced to a newspaper article which seems to say Kitchen said that about your theory, not about you.  Is the newspaper article incorrect about the quote of Kitchen?  Did Kitchen apologize for what's quoted in the newspaper article?  What sort of proof is there, if any, that he apologized?  If you have a valid case for changing the article in this way, the WP:BLPN noticeboard may be helpful.  Again, I may be able to help you with the wording of a post to there (although I have other demands on my time too). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for striking out part of one of your comments, as I suggested.   I hope you don't mind if I suggest you strike out or delete another one:   Making negative comments about editors is best avoided for several reasons:  it causes suffering (as you well know, having had to suffer Kitchen's remarks); it contributes to an atmosphere that makes collaboration with others difficult; and it might lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.  "[S]etting an example of extremely civil behavior is by far the best way to call someone out for uncivil behavior. The difference will be apparent to anybody looking, and the previously uncivil party will realize that the ball is in their court, to rise to the occasion." (GTBacchus)  If you treat others nicely, after a while you may be surprised at how nicely they treat you in return. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that the Sunday Times correspondent who wrote the article did not phrase the '98% rubbish' line correctly. The exact words were as I quoted above in that infamous private letter to an American fundamentalist colleague. I have a copy of the letter and it has appeared on the internet at various times and places. The apology from Kitchen came at a conference in which we debated the Exodus and Conquest, but there are no Proceedings to quote from. However, the discussion in which the apology was made was filmed and I might be able to find the time to transcribe his exact words - not that that is a published source. I don't object to the '98% rubbish' quote going into the article but it would be much fairer if the apology was noted as well. Theories often get ridiculed initially by scholars (look at Continental Drift Theory) and then, if the theory has any merit, people gradually come around. Kitchen at least was willing to retract his remark 'made in the heat of the moment'. By the way, are you going to ask dab to strike out the dozen insults he has thrown at all the editors working here on this article? Or do WP rules and guidelines permit admins to say what they like? Seems a very one-sided request at the moment.David Rohl (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! When I was posting my comment above, it occurred to me that it would be a good idea for me to read the whole discussions you were in to look for attacks against you from others, but I decided I didn't have time. I did quickly read the comment you had been replying to, and didn't notice anything I thought needed a comment from me; it wasn't directed towards you, anyway.
 * I don't think the apology can be noted in the article. It would have to have a published source.  If the film was published, that might count as a source.  The most you might be able to get is deletion of the rubbish comment, if it can be established that it's inaccurate or possibly if it can be established that Kitchen apologized for it.  Who has the film?
 * One more thing: note that usually, people perceive attacks against themselves as worse than how objective observers perceive them, and attacks that they write as less severe.  We need to compensate for this when comparing our own writing with others'.  In other words: things that look like attacks to you might not look like attacks to me, and vice versa. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the "rubbish" quote with a "nonsense" quote that's verifiable from a chapter written by Kitchen in a book. I understand that you may not be happy about that quote either – it's clearly not praise – but I hope you agree that it's verifiable and that it's reasonable to include it. Discussion is at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl). I've done some other edits to the article, too. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For me this is indeed a reliable reference from a legitimate authority. And, no I don't like it, but that is not the point. As far as I am concerned it can stay because it is a proper source.David Rohl (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. However, please be aware of the no legal threats policy, although I'm not saying your comment necessarily does or doesn't violate it in this situation. It's best to avoid going close. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, David. Sorry to criticize you again, but I'd like to suggest that you be more careful editing where you have a COI. I partially reverted here. An edit such as deleting "according to Rohl" or changing "he argues" to "he points out that" is clearly putting more weight on your theory.  You can suggest such edits on the talk page.  I would oppose them in this case.  But you shouldn't be editing the article yourself in such a way, per WP:COI. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Request
I would very much appreciate it if you would stop referring to Wikipedia as "wiki" - this is incorrect. "Wiki" is a type of software application which facilitates collaborative projects, and is more generally used to refer to the sites themselves, as a generic term - Wikipedia is a wiki, it is not "wiki". The specific software Wikipedia is on is Wikimedia, developed by the Wikimedia Foundation. If Wikipedia is too long to comfortably type, then "WP" or "wp" is an acceptable abbreviation for use here. However, "wiki" simply is inaccurate. Thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Maverick"
"Maverick" is a term of praise, not a pejorative at all. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in my book!David Rohl (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly meant it as praise and not as a pejorative. I apologize if this did not come across clearly. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic points
Mr. Rohl, I just finished reading "The Lost Testament." I love it and agree with almost everything. Except for a few points:
 * Aten or itn means "globe," "orb," or "sphere," rather than "disk." In relief inscriptions, the ITN is always 3-dimensional, never a flat disk.
 * Peletim is Hebrew for "refugees," not a variant of "Philistines." Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you are right but 'sun disk' is the standard term used by Egyptologists. And please remember that the ancient Egyptians did not perceive the heavenly bodies as globes or orbs. They did not even consider the Earth as a globe. So in Egyptian terms disk is actually more correct, though I take your point about the slight raising/curvature of the sun hieroglyph. You would have to take up the issue of Peletim with Hebrew scholars as they all derive Philistine from Pelet.David Rohl (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You, of all people, know better than anyone that Standard Egyptology is wrong on many points. And anyone who has seen an Itn (e.g. at the latest traveling Tutankhamon exhibit) can see that there is no flat disk represented. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Some Egyptologist who never visited Egypt looked at two-dimensional drawings of the ITN and decided it meant "disk." But anyone who has seen the three-dimensional high reliefs of the ITN know well that it is not a disk but a sphere, a globe, an orb, a ball. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And this is not a web forum to discuss our own observations. I'm sure you are aware of WP:OR. Name the Egyptologists who haven't travelled to Egypt and your source for them. Are you saying that Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt - Page 471 represents the views of Egyptologists who have never been to Egypt where it says " Tni-mnw-n-itn (“Exalted are the monuments of the Sun-disc”) and Rwd-mnw-n-itn (“Sturdy are the movements of the Sun disc”)."? Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pig bones
Archaeologists who favor Israel appearing first in the Iron Age say that Israelite settlements can be diagnostically distinguished because of the lack of pig bones. Is this a challenge to your chronology? How do you respond to it? Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that pig bones are found in the Bronze Age hill country sites but not in the Iron Age. And I would also argue that many Jewish religious practices were not followed to the letter until much later times.David Rohl (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please give us some more information on the subject, and where to find even more. Thank you. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't use this talk page as a forum. There's a Yahoo group for this. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Doug, it's his talk page. I don't see what business of yours it is what kind of discussions go on here.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mutbaal=Ishbosheth
An additional argument for identifying them as the same person: His father had his center of power in the "West Bank" or Samaria, but Mutbaal/Ishbosheth had his capital in Pella, in Transjordan (the "East Bank"). Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
(moved from Talk:New Chronology (Rohl))
 * It's nothing to do with being defensive and everything to do with expecting fair play and evenhandedness. Produce evidence to support your opinions, read up on the theory so that you know what you are talking about, don't just recite dogma, be open-minded. Don't jump to conclusions before you are familiar with the evidence, avoid promoting and sustaining gossip and propaganda. Just be honest and require equal quality of argument and support from both sides of the argument. Otherwise Wikipedia is nothing more than a place for cranks, loonies and people with huge chips on their shoulder. Editors and contributors have responsibilities.David Rohl (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Right because there is nothing loony about rewriting all of history to make it correspond to a hebrew story book. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That says it all. Now we know where you are coming from. A closed mind with no clue what the New Chronology is about or how it was constructed or in what way it affects the writing of history. Just pure ignorance driving dogma. You have no idea.David Rohl (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

{undent} WP:CIVIL. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with incivility, just stating the obvious.


 * 'a closed mind' because you are unable to contemplate that things do have to be 'rewritten' - that is called 'progress' (as opposed to stasis) and is a key characteristic of the human race. We are constantly replacing old ideas with new - especially when those old ideas prove to be unsatisfactory.


 * 'no clue what the New Chronology is about' because you haven't read any of the published material and you labour under the misunderstanding that the New Chronology was initiated and devised to prove the Bible. Completely untrue - as you would have realised if you had read the material. Those who have read the books know that I am not a religious person nor a 'believer'. They also know that methodologically and historically the New Chronology began with an investigation into Kitchen's chronology of the Third Intermediate Period (of which you know nothing).


 * 'pure ignorance' because you do not know anything about any of the disciplines with which the New Chronology and its historical reconstruction concerns itself. You are also ignorant because you say that I am rewriting 'all of history' which is plainly nonsense. The truth is that you don't know what the New Chronology does.


 * 'dogma' because you decry any attempt to re-examine orthodoxy as 'loony' and, in doing so, you insult half the world's population with the dogmatic pronouncement that the religious writings and cultural foundation stones of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are 'a hebrew story book' - in other words a work of fiction. That is dogma. And it is anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic propaganda born out of ignorance, demonstrating an inability to maintain a NPOV and showing a COI in your editing and comments here.David Rohl (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am cautioning you again to remain civil in talk page dicourse. Insulting me personally is contrary to proper behaviour on wikipedia. I suggest, in light of your clear conflict of interest, that you take a breather from egyptology articles and perhaps puruse some other sections of Wikipedia, paying attention to collegial discourse. Happy new year. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

David, whilst Simon is being seemingly rather thin-skinned (and, ironically, borderline rude), participation in other topics where you don't have a COI would do your ability to participate constructively on those you do no harm at all. And more generally, I do think your efforts would be better directed towards independent publications and writings (which will presumably be usable as sources) than trying to move things along on Wikipedia on these topics.

I think you just have to accept that it's a slow and difficult process improving coverage/quality of these kind of topics, with few people interested in doing it properly - and it's hard, and time-consuming. I'd suggest to you that providing relevant sources occasionally is fine (especially any new ones), but consistent efforts to argue with people about content or behaviour, regardless of the extent to which you're right, is not really necessarily helpful. cheers, Rd232 talk 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * @Rd232: My interest here is simply to ensure that Wikipedia does not misrepresent my work. It's as simple as that. And it is my fundamental right. Editing other articles is not going to prevent misrepresentation in the NC article. Nor will it challenge edits which are not based on facts or evidence or reliable sources but which attempt to smear the NC by implication and hearsay. The problem is that other editors who profess NPOV do not take action against these unsupported statements, leaving them in place to do their damage to a living person's reputation. If those editors were even handed, then it would not be necessary for me (with my hands tied behind my back because of COI) to attempt to get redress.
 * All I have asked from the start is that statements are backed up by sources and that criticism of the NC is done through evidence and not dogma or opinion. I have requested properly sourced evidence over and over again but the NC critics here just ignore this basic requirement. Is that reasonable? There are people in WP who do not apply this principle to their contributions and nobody is brave enough to pull them up when they make unsupported and unsupportable statements, or are selective in their use of material. Dbachmann's recent edit, which duplicated the highly contentious comment from Kitchen (otherwise in its proper place later in the article) and which also singled out creationists and fundamentalists as supporters of the NC, is designed to smear the NC right from the start of the article. There are supporters of the NC from all sections of the population, and just as many detractors from the conservative evangelical/fundamentalist sector (including Kitchen himself). So why highlight religious extremists in the introduction? Quite clearly the intention is to use these emotive labels as pejoratives to paint the NC as lunatic fringe. This is neither encyclopedic nor scholarly. It also goes against WP guidelines as I understand them.
 * So why don't you NPOV editors do something about it? You have seen how Dbachmann first tried to delete my Egyptologist tag in the NC article. When he was prevented from doing that, he tried the same thing in the David Rohl article. Then he deleted the original intro on NC and replaced it with misleading propaganda without qualification or sources. He is a malevolent influence in WP and he just keeps on getting away with it. Why do you allow it? How can WP be respected if its articles are biased by disruptive elements who use WP guidelines to their own advantage like Saudi or Iranian thought police? And why have articles written by people who are not even familiar with the material - even at its most basic level? These are fundamental problems with Wikipedia which need to be addressed by any reasonable editors still left here.David Rohl (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are really concerned that Wikipedia is not representing your work accurately you could request your BLP article, David Rohl be deleted through the AfD process. That may very well be a better solution to perpetrating continued, aggressive, debate over the ways you feel we are misrepresenting your work. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Comments by Nigedo ("I suggest you go and participate in another area of Wikipedia") Dbachmann ("you of course mean "my homies",")  and David Rohl ("Sanity and reasonableness regains a foothold";  I take Dbachmann's point that this implies there had been insanity and unreasonableness) all seem to me inappropriate as article talk page comments, at the very least straying from what we're supposed to be discussing there. (I'm putting a similar message on all three user talk pages.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

COI at Sheshonk IV
David, you know about WP:COI and you have a major conflict of interest at this article and shouldn't be editing it, particularly not adding material about yourself. I'll also point out that you don't seem to understand our policies. If you want to claim "This Pharaoh's existence was first argued by David Rohl" you can't use yourself as a reference (especially as the journal wouldn't qualify as a reliable source but would need a well known Egyptologist stating this. The same for saying that Dodson followed you in something. More than that, I find a 1982 mention of Sheshonk IV so I can't see how you can be the first. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Doug, you are wrong on all points. Correcting an error of fact is not COI. My 1989 paper is verifiable. It is in print and held in the British Library and National Library of Congress, as wll as at dozens of universities. You are also wrong about the 1982 CAH mention of Shoshenk IV ... that is a different king called Usermaatre Shoshenk, not Hedjkheperre Shoshenk. It is an indisputable fact that I proposed this identification, proven by the 1989 paper published in a journal which includes contributions from many highly respected scholars and academics. So you are wrong again to claim JACF is not a reliable source. What do you mean by a reliable source anyway? The discovery of a new pharaoh could have been written on toilet paper so long as it was dated. The fact that I introduced this new discovery several years before Aidan Dodson published his paper is proof of primacy ... especially since Dodson acknowledged such in his paper. Therefore you are also wrong in your requirement for acknowledgement by a well-known Egyptologist because Dodson is precisely such. And are you saying that I am not a well-known Egyptologist? Dodson did follow me in this. To say otherwise is a denial of the truth. Is that what Wikipedia represents?David Rohl (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. As I've said, I need to read Dodson - if you have a copy, you can email it to me from my talk page. Dodson's a reliable source by our criteria and more importantly here an independent one. We can't use your paper as evidence for your primacy, we need someone else stating that. If I can get Dodson tomorrow (and if you don't have it someone else will) this can be fixed. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And see WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong again.You say "we can't use your paper as evidence for your primacy". Do you understand what 'evidence' is? The existence of my paper and its publication date (registered with the British Library) is all the evidence needed to demonstrate that it precedes Dodson. Dodson's acknowledgement of this fact is evidence. You seem to be getting confused with the basic principles of historical fact. A fact is something which appears in print or on the internet. The content is not the fact but the publication is.David Rohl (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What the !"$"? Did you hack Facebook? Neither of those pages are mine. The first one is clearly libellous and I will contact FB about it. My only FB page is http://www.facebook.com/DougWeller1?ref=tn_tnmn. I'm not gay nor do I love gay porn. And your post looks like a threat. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If that is the case I will remove the statement immediately and apologise. Deleted.David Rohl (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FB seems to have rapidly acted on my complaint. It's pretty disgusting though to research someone on the Internet in order to attack them for their personal life. FYI, my actual website is http://www.ramtops.co.uk but I haven't paid much attention to it for several years. I'm still pretty disgusted but my interest is in Wikipedia, not you and I want to get this right. Dodson's paper looks difficult to get. I repeat, can you send me a copy? It's dougweller at gmail.com - otherwise I'll ask around to see if someone has one - maybe Troy Sagrillo if I can't get hold of Dodson. But you need to take the comments at RSN seriously. I want to see you treated fairly but according to our guidelines and policies, and preceding Dodson doesn't make you first (which you may be, but we need to use someone like Dodson saying it). Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems as if someone else has a pretty big grudge against you to do that ... and moreover someone who appears to know you and some details about your private life. I did not research you in order to attack you. I looked you up on Facebook to find out who you were and what you knew about Egyptology or what your interests were. At least you do not hide behind anonymity like most Wikipedians. I have the Dodson paper somewhere in five filing cabinets containing several thousand articles and photocopies. If I were to find it (could take days) I would then have to scan it and send it to you. Why don't you contact the original author of the Sheshonk IV article who stated that I had first proposed the identification (subsequently confirmed by Dodson) ... you know, the part you deleted thinking I had added it! He should have the paper. If not you could challenge him too as part of the conspiracy to have me recognised as the discoverer. Dodson does state that I first proposed the new king and pre-publication to Dodson does indeed prove primacy under law.David Rohl (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Right I have done your research for you. Here are direct quotes from Dodson's 1993 article in Göttinger Miszellen 137 which prove unequivocally that I was the person who proposed the addition of a new king Hedjkheperre Shoshenk and that Dodson EVENTUALLY followed my proposal and confirmed it through work on the king's epithets. To quote:


 * That such a ruler might exist was apparently first suggested by David Rohl [Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Workshop 6:2 (1985); Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop (hereafter C&CW) 1986:1, 17-18, n.2; Rohl, personal communication, 1986.], basing his proposal on the stela of the Chief of the Libu, Niumataped, now in St Petersburg. Noting that the latter’s title otherwise first appears in Year 31 of Shoshenq III, Rohl’s view was to identify this worthy with one of identical name and title, attested in Year 8 of a ruler who should probably be taken as being Shoshenq V. [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 53.]


 * Rohl’s conclusion was, however, that the monument actually constituted evidence for a second Hedjkheperre Shoshenq, whom he dubbed ‘Ib’. He suggested that he had ruled alongside Shoshenq III from early in the latter’s second decade for some fifteen years, perhaps being the unnamed king of Karnak Nile-Level text 24, whose year 12 corresponded to Pedubast’s Year 5 [Rohl, C&CW 1986:1, 17-18, 21.] [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 54.]


 * In a paper published in 1989/90 [Rohl, JACF 3, 45-72.] he brought further evidence into the equation, in the form of finds made during Pierre Montet’s excavation of the tomb of Shoshenq III at San el-Hagar (NRT V). The sepulchre’s burial chamber contained two sarcophagi, that of the king himself, and another, without any inscription. In the debris, however, were found fragments from one of two canopic jars, bearing the names of Hedjkheperre-setepenre Shoshenq-meryamun-sibast-netjerheqaon. [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 54.]


 * Rohl took a wholly different position, and used the evidence of the jars as the key element of his theory that there were indeed two Hedjkheperre Shoshenqs. [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 55.]


 * Having implicitly rejected such a conclusion in 1986, further study of the canopic fragments as part of my general treatment of royal canopics has now led me rather to support the existence of two Shoshenqs with the prenomen Hedjkheperre. [A. Dodson: ‘A new King Shoshenq confirmed?’ in GM 137 (1993), p. 55.]


 * I trust that is more than enough evidence for you to reinstate my edits to the article which are both accurate and truthful to the discovery process. You should also do the same with the Osorkon III article which is just as factual and true. And I think you owe me an apology here and elsewhere in Wikipedia discussions.David Rohl (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I removed the 'NOTE' on the old pre-1993 Shoshenq IV and undercapitalised the netjerheqaon epithet here Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

David Rohl Article
I have removed the business reference (I assume you want it removed because of personal details, not because it isn't your company). I have re-instated the birth details as they are referenced. The article previously claimed, unreferenced I might add, that you were born in Manchester - official birth records show you were born in Barton, Eccles which is very close to Manchester but actually Salford and at the time Lancashire.

92.8.19.245 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we have a problem here. First, I have nothing to do with that business. It is not my company. Second, I was born in Oxford Street, Stretford and not Barton-on-Irwell. So the solution is surely not to put any details of my place of birth as the records you are using are clearly wrong. Moreover, why include a business in the article which has nothing to do with me?David Rohl (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you considered that the record you are referencing gives the address of the registry office and not the place of birth?David Rohl (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I have just clicked on the reference to the company director that you posted ... and you are correct ... I am a director of that company. But I am extremely disturbed to find that in doing so you have revealed my private address. I have already had to sell one home and move away because of crank visitors who theatened me and my family, and you have risked that happening again. What on Earth possesses someone to publish private details like that? Are you doing it in the interest of freedom of information? You prefer to remain anonymous when it comes to your editing of Wikipedia, so maybe you can understand that to give out your private address to all and sundry is simply not on.David Rohl (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Doug ... I think I do know where I was born. Could you please also advise on what Wikipedia policy is about giving out private addresses of living persons via reference links. This is very disturbing and is surely a breach of the Data Protection Act?David Rohl (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A bad idea although probably not a breach of the DPA. And it seems neither of you think it's important enough to have been included. I wish the address issue hadn't been brought up here as it highlights it. I've reverted, but you might wish to ask for WP:OVERSIGHT although I'm not sure what the response would be. Probably of the article and this section. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct Place of Birth
Please could someone correct the info about my place of birth. I was not born in Barton-upon-Erwell. I was born in Oxford Street, Stretford, Manchester. The place of registration of my birth certificate was Barton-upon-Erwell. I have my birth certificate and it clearly states that I was born in Stretford.David Rohl (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)