Talk:Ophel pithos

Why this article needs rewriting

It's just amazing!! One of the most famous epigraphers on Earth, Christopher Rollston "assumed" one thing and Creationist PhD Candidate Douglas Petrovich "found" that he was wrong. It was even on Fox News so it must be true. What can I say? Zero^talk 14:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Both claims are changed to "assumed" Satisfied?--Tritomex (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Douglas Petrovich is not a "creationist" PhD he is very respected scientist.

I have repeatedly asked you not to push a POV, Tritomex. What you did with those sources was outrageous. As Zero noted, or implied, you undercut two of the top paleographers in semitic literature in order to showcase the theories of a rank outsider who is pushing a fundamentalist piece of hogwash. Galil's paper may be used here if one wants a different construction, but in any case, you have broken, among many other things, WP:Undue. I've had to rewrite the whole thing in order to adjust the presentation according to the best sources and the appropriate weight given competent experts.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I ask you and Zero0000 to stop your joint immediate reverts of all my edits, something you are doing together for years. I have nothing against rewriting this article but to call Douglas Petrovich a fundamentalist creationist while reliable sources like NBC and FOX calls him a "top expert" is beyond original research. --Tritomex (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Btw I support the current form, when I created this article I wished to ensure that this subject was covered by Wikiepdia, I did not found other sources beyond Rollstone aand Petrovich and I am happy that other sources are also in. --Tritomex (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The reasons why I did not covered Rollstone more is because (as it is now the case) the source on his views are coming from his vebsite and not from Scientific journals and is much less covered by other secondary sources (in contrat to Petrovich). I dont know how this fit other similar cases in other articles. Beyond this additional space needs to be given to the archaeologist who actually discovered this inscription (E.Mazar) Third, non bias title should be given to the section about Petrovich, f.e. Other views or something similar.--Tritomex (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want me to stop reverting your edits (which I didn't do, so what are you talking about?), you need to stop making edits that beg to be reverted. The fact is that Petrovich is extremely dubious as a RS. He is a student at the University of Toronto. Being a member of Creation Ministries International is sufficient proof that he fails WP:RS. What FOX says about him is hardly support given that they promote all sorts of arrant rubbish. His publications are the standard sort of bible myth stuff like dating the exodus. Zero^talk 07:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed Petrovich. Totally unacceptable. Since he mentions his correspondence with Galil, I have started to provide references to Galil's original world. Athas's blog is not quite up to snuff, but he quotes Gershon Galil's emails, and they both are members of Zwinglius Redivivus, which is a respectable scholarly blog. p.s. don't make silly accusations about tag-teaming. If you are uncomfortable with any of this, go and try to convince RSN. The answer will almost certainly deny Petrovich as RS.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nish, Are you sure we aren't misjudging Petrovich? After all, he starts his talk on his discovery of the site of the Tower of Babel with a prayer. Not only that, but he has discovered the true date of the Great Flood, so he is obviously a genius of the first order. Zero^talk 12:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeezus, oops YHWH or whatever, I really am getting slack. If you think we should revert the text back, by all means. The only great flood I detect is what drongos of the first water manage to inundate the internet with.:) Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What's with the warning?

The quote at the end of the article looks out of place. Is it normal for WP articles to contain warnings about 'improper interpretation'?99.70.91.82 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it looks out of place, since it does not specifically address any issue which is raised in the article. I won't object if it disappears. Zero^talk 00:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)