User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2018/December

Responding to your changing my edit on The Exodus page
I think the edit I made was constructive as it's saying that there is historical evidence for The Exodus. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dantek (talk • contribs)


 * "Founding myth" is not about "true" or "false". This has been discussed to death, see e.g. Talk:The Exodus/Archive 12. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. I propose we add both statements with their citations to the article so it can better represent the academic community, history, etc. That way both are being represented. 123dantek (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:GEVAL, WP:RS/AC and WP:FRINGE: we don't think that all opinions are equal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the citation I provided is from a legitimate source and should be on the page. It's up to the reader to see the sources and make up their own mind, we don't do that for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dantek (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You might think that, but that is not how Wikipedia works. We are pretty much biased for the academic mainstream, and unapologetic so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Even if that is so this is coming from the academic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dantek (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia was never in the business of second guessing academic consensus. The matter is pretty clear to all, except POV-pushers and fundamentalists. This is called "the free encyclopedia", not the "let's not disturb the bigots encyclopedia". Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You claimed that Wikipedia is about the academic community and what it's position about certain things yet when I present a source from the academic community that disagrees with you, you insult me. As you said, Wikipedia is 't the place for your opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dantek (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not my wish to offend you, but Wikipedia isn't censored in order to not offend fundamentalists. If you got offended by the consensus of mainstream historians, this says more about you than about Wikipedia. Also, we go by WP:RS written by real scholars, not by random WP:BLOGS which defend a religious faith. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you were intending to offend me, but calling someone a bigot doesn't leave much for interpretation. If there really is a general consensus then why does a Harvard educated professor disagree with that assumption? I appreciate this discussion. 123dantek (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The source cited was a popular (as in "for the people") source, not an academic one. It interviewed a single academic whose views are not supported by the mainstream scholarship. We give views weight equal to their prominence in the community. We don't take a few isolated scholars and hold their views up as equal to the thousands of other trained scholars who disagree. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What I have stated remains true regardless of your religious beliefs, I wasn't attacking you as a person, but bigotry as a general concept. Also, consensus isn't unanimity.

"I’ve read these books. And others. On Hoffmeier, note his conclusion re: his own archaeological work is that the idea of an exodus isn’t impossible. He knows very well he hasn’t proven anything.

You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view"

- Peter Enns


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ″I’ve read these books. And others. On Hoffmeier, note his conclusion re: his own archaeological work is that the idea of an exodus isn’t impossible. He knows very well he hasn’t proven anything.″ This should be clearly stated on the page. The alternative perspective should be shown in the article, as many scholars disagree with the assertation that The Exodus didn't happen. It should be clear that while this may be the consensus it's not a fact, it hasn't been confirmed to be true. We could go back and forth with our sources and edits, but it would be much easier if there was an acknowledgment on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dantek (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"He (Israel Finkelstein) cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century B.C. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, Ai was abandoned before 2000 B.C. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 B.C. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging."


 * See, there was no conquest therefore no Exodus. Of course, if by the Exodus you mean 60 slaves and their families, that is not a falsifiable claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You're just providing a document which I could counter with another. It says ″the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists" yet no evidence is provided for this claim. It provides no evidence for the other claims it makes as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dantek (talk • contribs) 04:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a research institute, it is an encyclopedia; it does not work with "evidence", it works with WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I understand what you're saying and thank you for talking with me. I did an arbitration as I'd like to hear it from them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123dantek (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Exodus Page Dispute Arbitration Case Request
Hello, I'm and I'm a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. A case request which you recently named a party to was declined as premature by the Arbitration Committee. I've suggested to the other party that they visit Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or perhaps start a request for comment on the article's talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this action. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)