Talk:Bob Cornuke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Just so folks understand

Jason Gastrich is POV pushing (again) in this article, which was a simple few sentences of "hero worship" from the born-again perspective until I found it and improved it.

I'm going to go ahead and figure that it's going to become yet another conflict involving Gastrich because he cannot approach any of these subjects without POV pushing. He's here, after all, to make Wikipedia more Christian (at least, from his point of view) and insure that "Christians have a voice" at Wikipedia. The consequence of that is that Gastrich is unable to separate that from his "contributions" whenever the subject even peripherally involves things he considers "Christian." Gastrich is also using Wikipedia to promote his Christian heroes; and being somewhat developmentally disabled on an emotional level, he acts very much like a spoiled child whenever something is written that he presumes is bad. We keep seeing it in the article about Bob Cornuke.

Bob Cornuke, in the reference cited in the article, claims to have found the anchors of the vessel that Paul was sailing when it was involved in the shipwreck described by the account in Scripture.

Now, I approach this claim scientifically, as a trained and skilled investigator, and I accept that it's a claim that has been made. I don't assume that the items are the anchors of Paul's ship just because he says they are. That's not how it works. No one really knows what it is that Cornuke claims to have found--even he doesn't know. He makes the assumption, based on his perspective, that he's found the anchors. No one else knows that, and there's no independent, qualified verification by the archaeological community.

Because Cornuke has made the claim, and because Cornuke is one of Gastrich's personal heroes--and because this is something that Gastrich wants to believe (being a Biblical literist an inerrantist), he (or his AOL sock) keeps changing my "claims to have found" section of that sentence to "has found." Then he accuses me of "POV pushing."

I just report the facts, i.e., Cornuke claims to have found the anchors from the ship that Paul was sailing when it sank, as described in Acts 27. I have yet to find any independent, verifiable, peer-reviewed article from any archaeological reference that these items are the anchors of Paul. In other words, no one else seems to want to make that assertion. Shucks, the reference that is associated with that part of the article was found and inserted by me. It's a link to an article written by Cornuke.

Gastrich, the born-again Christian (sort of), whom originally wrote the stub article on Cornuke, and whom argues hither and yon at Wikipedia and engages in tantrum throwing when he doesn't get his way, changes it to "has found," claiming that the other version is "POV pushing."

Have a nice day. - WarriorScribe 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm an inerrantist and I think that's a stupid claim to make. What, did Paul scratch his initials on the anchors of every ship he was on? A.J.A. 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I don't have a problem with Cornuke claiming that's what he's found, as long as an encyclopedia article is clear that it's just a claim. I understand and agree with your comment. I simply think that it's less POV if we make it clear, especially given the lack of supporting evidence, that it's a claim, and nothing more. To argue or insist otherwise is POV-pushing...and, in the case of some, wishful thinking. - WarriorScribe 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess you'll have to see the video, read the book, and hear him speak. I've done 2 of 3 and I'm impressed. And by the way, I didn't read any of the personal attacks above. All I have to do is see WarriorScribe's name and I know it's not worth reading. --Jason Gastrich 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You're also impressed by Hovinds science credentials (AiG are not impressed by him). By Misslers apologetics. David D. (Talk) 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite correct...it's easy to impress Gastrich...as long as you're telling him what he wants to believe, already believes, or doesn't have to think about much. - WarriorScribe 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, notice a couple of things. First, Gastrich boasts of seeing a video and reading the book (as I have also done). He makes no attempt to explain to us exactly what compelling evidence exists, especially independently verified, that provides any real support for the claim that the anchors are those of Paul's vessel. Second, this time, he did not change the article to read as he would prefer it to read, which suggests that he did read my commentary, as written above, knows he won't get away with another POV edit, and tried tossing a pathetic insult as he retreated. - WarriorScribe 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE (Content removal)

This page has under gone major construction to eliminate the slanderous and libelous material and references and present a less biased, but accurate view of who he is. All serious edits and updates are welcome, but character attacks or other negative comments, even hidden in non-direct language, will continue to be removed. The intent of the post is not to push a POV, but a provide a more judicious and balanced description of Robert Cornuke as is the intent of Wikipedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SYITS (talk • contribs)

You removed facts about LBU lacking school accreditation. You removed cited articles calling him a "fraud" and "con artist." You inserted uncited material about Wyatt. You inserted uncited claims in his video. Please become familiar with wikipedia policies before you edit further. Arbusto 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you know? Another Gastrich sock, along with the normal Gastrich whitewash and the pretense that the whitewash is nPOV... - WarriorScribe 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not every whitwasher is Gastrich. JoshuaZ 15:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but what are the odds that it just happens to be someone else, offended at the publication of the sordid details of one of Gastrich's personal heroes...? ;) It could be someone else, but the verbiage, presumption to lecture, and socks talking to one-another (i.e., "John Doe") tactic is vintage Gastrich. - WarriorScribe 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think in general you guys are too quick to condemn such socks as Jason. Given his personality, if it is him, it wiil become much more blatant very soon. JoshuaZ 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand. You could, quite possibly, be right. Odds are pretty good that it's Gastrich, particularly given his record, but I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time!  ;) - WarriorScribe 16:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Current Article

First of all, I would like to apologize for my entrance onto Wikipedia and my initial attempts at editing this post. I am brand new to this forum and this kind of concept and I have been, since the first “debacle”, familiarizing myself with the rules and regulations of this site to ensure compliance with the guidelines and cordiality with all the editors.

Instead of just editing the live post, as I did previously, I am offering various refutations and reasons that the current post is incorrect and biased and provide explanation why it should be rewritten. Additionally, I will detail how and why it violates the published rules, goals and guidelines of Wikipedia [1].

I have also offered a rewritten version of the article that strives to reflect an NPOV and that more accurately presents Bob Cornuke and that upholds the 5 pillars of Wikipedia [2].

Firstly, below are 8 major problems with the current article:

1. The post, in general, describes Bob as a "con artist" and a "fraud", with most of these accusations referenced from The New Zealand Cult List [3], which is offered as a valid source for these terms. This website provides no sources or citations from these accusations and cannot itself be considered a source[4]) . These words clearly cast Bob in a negative light, even though they are hidden in “neutral” language. Plus, they mostly originate from the contentions of a "competitor" (Roy Wyatt, [5]), who has himself been subject to these same kinds of claims, even though they are not prominently discussed on Wyatt’s Wikipedia article.

These are spurious accusations in nature (refer to discussion below on Mt. Sinai discovery) that come from a rival archeologist and should have no place on Wikipedia, as this violates the top 2 of the 5 pillars [6] . There are plenty of other forums where accusations can be aired, regardless of merit, but it is a stated goal of wikipedia.org not to be one of these forums.

Additionally, neither Cornuke nor Williams have ever been found guilty of any form or fraud or other malfeasance by any court of law! So, it is inappropriate and unjust for these accusations to be presented here, and even given prominence since they are included in the opening paragraph of the post.

2. Additional evidence that this is a biased post against Bob Cornuke comes from an outside source, Google. Regardless of the editors’ efforts to disguise the accusations with "neutral" language, it is plainly a biased POV and can be seen when a Google search is done on the term "Bob Cornuke" [7]. The Wikipedia article is the 6th result, and notice the description, under the title, that’s presented:

"Ten Reasons to be wary of Bob Cornuke · Dictionary of Cults & Religious Groups List: C See: Bob Cornuke; A Critique of Bob Cornuke with a timeline Following ..."

This immediately gives the impression that Bob Cornuke is part of a cult and that everyone should be wary of him (there is no basis or reference for the accusation that he is in a cult and it is solely the opinion of a dissenter and should be immediately dismissed [8]. The accusation is contained on the New Zealand Cults List [9] and is not cited or referenced by any valid outside source). This description on Google clearly presents a biased picture of Bob Cornuke BEFORE the user ever has a chance to see the actual article! Add to that Wikipedia’s reputation of being known as an online "encyclopedia", and it raises these baseless accusations from the level of banter between rivals and critics to established truth.

3. The opening paragraph of Controversy and Criticism is misleading. While Wyatt was the first to name Jabal Al-Lawz as the place of Mt. Sinai, Cornuke and Williams were the first to bring photographic and video evidence from the site, and subsequently add merit to Wyatt's claims. Wyatt is also credited in Bob and Larry’s book The Mountain of Moses. [10]. A rephrasing of this material, at the least, is warranted (reference the modified article below) and more appropriately, this reference should be removed (See Self-published Sources [11]) as it fails to uphold the Wikipedia standards for a valid reference..

4. The inclusion of the lawsuit from Kathryn Proffit is also frivolous and only seeks to tarnish Bob Cornuke and give merit to the "fraud" and "con-artist" accusations. Anyone who was been around the world of business or ministry, especially over the last 10-15 years, has probably been sued or knows someone who has. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything and file a lawsuit, if they have the money and audacity to pursue the case, regardless of the merit of the claim. Let me repeat that, regardless of the merit of the claim.

This lawsuit has still not come before a judge for settlement and her initial request for injunction was denied, casting some doubt on the merit of that claim, especially since it's based on an un-witnessed, oral agreement [12]. If, and only if, Bob is found to be guilty or negligent in this matter, should this material become part of this article.

Additionally, the website referenced “The New Zealand Cult List” [13] for the “fraud” and “con-artist” accusations is not a valid reference. They don't cite any evidence or sources for their claims, except the Christianity Today article (which does not discuss his interest in money nor does it make any mention of Cornuke being “fraud” or a “con-artist” [14]), so these accusations can only be viewed as the opinion of an invalid source and not an objective or unbiased source of FACTS (which are required for encyclopedias AND this website). The sole purpose of this New Zealand Cults website seems to be to accuse others of malfeasance, so they are biased by their very nature and can’t be used here. Any and all references to this website should be removed and any content based on its material rephrased or removed to comply with the rules and regulations of this website.

5. If there are valid critical sources of Bob Cornuke, a 2nd category should be added called 'Skeptical Sites', instead of listing them all under ‘External Links’. This is used in Ron Wyatt's post [15] and is a much more neutral presentation of dissenting material, as long as it holds up to the criteria established by Wikipedia [16].

6. The Link "Top 10 Reasons to be wary of Bob Cornuke" [17] is full of problems, both in the assertions it contains and the material used as references. This is clearly an opinion piece and a direct attack on Bob’s character. The materials that are cited are full of holes, and they certainly do not meet the criteria established by Wikipedia for valid references [18]. Bob Cornuke's even being attacked for not having a good website, as if it somehow not having a good website actually holds any bearing on the merit of someone’s research or the quality of their character.

BASE institute is a very small, I mean, VERY small organization, with no permanent staff. BASE has no budget for a blockbuster website, and they rely on volunteers to assist with it. It's obvious Mr. Mander is digging for anything to smear Cornuke, even though Bob's only goal is to share his discoveries, and the discoveries of other adventurers [19], with people all around the world through his testimony.

Bob does not spend his time attacking other ministries or individuals and as official policy, does not give merit or dignity to spurious accusations by responding to them. Additionally, this document fails to uphold the described standards for a valid reference as established by Wikipedia (See Self-published sources [20]).

7. The post on pinkoski.com [21] is also rather problematic; Pinkoski goes on and on about how Bob and Larry never mention Wyatt, yet gives the references where Ron Wyatt is mentioned in Bob and Larry's book! Cornuke and Williams are out to promote the work THEY did and the things THEY found, not what Wyatt discovered or found. Also, Pinkoski makes reference to accusations that Larry Williams supposedly reported that Wyatt never actually found Jabal Al-Lawz, but the article cites no source or reference for this accusation. Pinkoski was also a curator of one of Wyatt's museums, so he's obviously a biased source against Cornuke and Williams and again should not be counted as a valid critic or reference (See Self-published sources [22]).

It’s also interesting to note that Cornuke and Williams prominently feature Jim and Penny Caldwell [23] on their video, Mountain of Fire – The Search for the True Mount Sinai (Dean River Productions, Copyright FHC LLC. © 2002 – [24]). So it doesn’t seem that they are in the habit of taking all the glory or not giving credit where credit is due.

8. Assigning Bob Cornuke to the categories of "Fraudsters" and “Religious Scandals” is also spurious and without merit. These categorizations should be removed immediately. From the commentary above, these accusations have clearly been identified as without verifiable proof or merit and they fail to uphold the standards established by Wikipedia for valid references.

As an additional note, I notice that Ron Wyatt’s [25] post is much more benign and neutral in nature than Bob Cornuke’s, even though Wyatt has been the subject of the same kinds of criticism, if not more so, for his discoveries and research [26]. Even given this, Wyatt is NOT categorized similarly, under “Fraudsters” or “Religious Scandals” like Cornuke, even though Wyatt’s mentioned on the same New Zealand Cult List website [27]! Clearly, this categorization of Bob as a fraud is not from an NPOV and should be removed immediately as it has no valid reference or basis in fact. Otherwise, this link should be added to Ron Wyatt’s article.

It seems clear that a Pro-Wyatt, Anti-Cornuke coalition has wrestled control of this post and it is time this article is brought back into reality and rewritten with verifiable facts and a neutral presentation that follows the rules and regulations of Wikipedia.

Below is a revised post for review. Any comments and edits are more than welcome, but they must meet the rules and guidelines established by Wikipedia to be accepted. Thankfully, Wikipedia has established an arbitration committee if editors continue to taint the article or include invalid sources as references. --SYITS 14:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a brewing issue between one of Gastrich's heroes ("SYITS" is, almost certainly, a Gastrich sock, representing a "pro-Cornuke" perspective), arguing some sort of conspiratorial nonsense about some nebulous "anti-Cornuke" or "pro-Wyatt" group. Characteristically, Gastri...uh, SYITS, wants to lecture about the rules of Wikipedia, while white-washing, marginalizing, minimizing, and perhaps eliminating statements that are either controversial or those which he views as unflattering or controversial.

• I am not lecturing about on the rules, simply bringing them in as defence to my position that much of the cited material is not valid source or reference material. Controversial statements and allegations can be made, but they must have referenceable, citeable sources and many used here CLEARLY are not. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. It's purpose is not to provide an unfettered platform for hero-worship. That means that articles about certain personalities and institutions are not always going to be flattering, and they are not intended to cast the person or institution in a flattering light, subject to approval and the subjective application of shifting standards by hero-worshippers. If there is controversy about an individual or institution, it gets reported, regardless of the resolution to the controversy, if, indeed, a resolution has been reached. It doesn't get whitewashed or minimized simply because someone doesn't happen to like it.

• Bringing up non-flattering material is fine, but bringing up libelous material is not. None of the most outrageous accusations have even a hint of evidence behind them, they are simply rhetoric from someone who doesn't like Bob Cornuke's research. They have no basis in fact and shouldn't be included in any form of material claiming to be reference. Just because you happen to like what a source has to say, doesn't mean it can be included. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Compare the (admittedly flawed) article, as it stands, with the "proposed version," as it appears above. Notice some of the sly and not-so-sly POV pushing occurs. For example, the current article explains that the claims of Cornuke with respect to the "discovery" of "the anchors of Paul" is just that, i.e., a claim--nothing more. Gastrich, during his attempts to whitewash that fact, would remove it, and claim that he did so to maintain a more neutral POV. When I explained, above, why he was wrong, we heard no more about it, which is not unusual. Instead, we have another tried-and-true tactic. We have the creation of sock puppets, and new attempts, later on, to remove that simple little fact. Notice that there is no mention of that, at all, in the "revision" that is proposed above. Notice, also, that while some of the controversy is retained with respect to the conflict between Ron Wyatt and Cornuke, within their little "walled garden," it is minimized by the verbiage of the edited version above (along with the veiled threat of a call for arbitration, something Gastrich knows about all too well, having been banned for a year by a recent ArbCom decision).

• I like how everytime you try and counter an argument, you call me Gastrich. I am clearly not Gastrich, regardless of your attempts to shade my posts with that allegation. Don't you think they would have kicked me off by now if I were Gastrich?!?! The currently article is so NEGATIVELY skewed, it's no wonder you think that removing some outrageous sources is POV pushing, you'r right, I'm POV pushing IT BACK TO NEUTRAL!! --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The comment about Cornuke modelling himself as a modern-day "Indiana Jones" isn't mentioned, at all, in the proposed article, though it was is referenced in the current article. This, too, was removed by previous attempts at white-wash.

The above was put in deliberately, as a test, and as part of my attempt to establish whether or not SYITS is a sock. I've struck it through and I am further convinced that SYITS is a Gastrich sock. - WarriorScribe 03:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm only on the site, at most, once a day. I'm not sure why you would think an insert like this would establish my identify, I just took it to mean you didn't read my revised post very closely ;)

--SYITS 00:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me to say that the phrase was put in to see what sort of reaction might occur. Gastrich claims that he doesn't read my commentary, though there's reason to doubt that, so such an obvious error would have gone unnoticed by him, or he would be forced into a situation in which he could not comment. It did, in fact, go unmentioned when "SYITS" first replied to the comments. I can only speak for myself, but I would have noticed such a glaring error. - WarriorScribe 03:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk of the "famed" Costa Mesa SWAT team has been restored in the new article by "SYITS." Well, I was a cop for 11 years, also. I wasn't aware of any specific "fame" for the CMPD SWAT team any more than that of the LAPD SWAT team, the Denver SWAT team, or any other SWAT team.

Cornuke's experience as a crime scene investigator, such as it might be (and it is without confirmation by any independent source) does not really qualify him as any kind of scientific expert in the fields of archaeology or ancient history. It would appear that the citation of this "fact" takes advantage of the normal misunderstanding that most of us might have with respect to what CSI agents tend to do in the course of their duties. CSI agents for most departments (including Costa Mesa PD, if I recall correctly), are civilians , they are neither police officers nor specifically trained in the interpretation of evidence. They "process" crime scenes, gather evidence, run various laboratory tests, and only occasionally present conclusions. They apply scientific prinicples, but they do not "do science."

• This is simply biographic material, nothing more. It doesn't add or subtract from his research, besides, his research is not up for debate here, THIS IS A BIOGRAPHICAL POST. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cornuke's use of the Bible as a guide, as claimed, doesn't do anything for his investigative credibility.

• Maybe for you, but the Bible is the most archeologically verified text in existence, so I would be careful about discounting it's use in archeological circles. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And notice the more familiar references to "Bob" instead of "Cornuke" or "Dr Cornuke" in the article.

• Simply to improve readbility... --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

These points, and a few others, point to a writer whom has a stake in the article as he has presented it. I believe that the author is a Gastrich sock, given away by the edits, the style of writing, the veiled threats found in today's commentary as well as the first commentary on this page, and the concentration on a single, Gastrich-created and supported article in Wikipedia. If that is the case, it is interesting that, just a few weeks ago, Gastrich was telling us that he wouldn't participate in Wiki, any more, due to the alleged "unequal yoking" that occurs when one "cooperates" with "unbelievers."

• I have no stake other than to see the man treated fairly and accurately. It sound though like you have a stake, that being the maligning of Bob Cornuke's work and character. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly agree that the article needs a bit more work, as do most (maybe all) articles at Wikipedia, composed and edited, as they are, by non-professionals. But I don't think that whitewashing and marginalizing legitimate controversies is an improvement. I guess we'll see, particularly if much discussion of this article ensues. If I need to, I can go point-by-point through the comments of "SYITS," above, and show why most of them are groundless, baseless, rely in a biased reading of the article, or engage in attempts at whitewash. - WarriorScribe 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

SYITS IS NOT A GASTRICH PUPPET

For the record, I SYITS am not in any associated with this Gastrich individual and am not a "sock puppet" of any form. I am a real person who happened to find problems with the Bob Cornuke's article and I want to offer an appropriate rebuttal.

--SYITS 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO, I think SYITS is telling the truth here. His writting style is a bit different from Jasons and he lacks certain other tell tale signs of Jason. JoshuaZ 00:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That said, most of Warrior's above objections are still completely valid. JoshuaZ 00:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny how SYITS's account becomes active in the midst of other suspected Gastrich white washing at the LBU page. Arbusto 01:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Log:

• Alyssa1440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 01:02, 3 April 2006
• Jayson Marx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 00:58, 3 April 2006
• SYITS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Makes the post above at 00:50, 3 April 2006
• Neil Bonetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) white washes accreditaion at the LBU article at 0:37, 3 April 2006

• Remember, Gastrich's tactic, occasionally, is to try to outlast the opposition, and hope that they tire of exposing him. - WarriorScribe 02:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant the possibility that SYITS is not a Gastrich sock, but I see more similarity than dissimilarity; and the dissimilarity would not be difficult to create. Certainly, a denial isn't going to be enough to be convincing, since there's so much of that similarity, including some of the presumptuousness that accompanied both the original edits and the proposed article, above; and Gastrich never was above engaging in deception. Time will tell, I think. Much will depends on the ability of SYITS to accept concensus and reasonable discussion with respect to the Cornuke article.

If SYITS is not Gastrich, I'll give him a piece of advice with respect to writing at Wikipedia: You just wrote it...you didn't give birth to it. In other words, don't get too attached to a piece of writing. What is created, originally, and what it becomes, in the end, are often dramatically different. - WarriorScribe 02:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WarriorScribe at al, I am not Gastrich! Never have been, never will be ;) I've been pretty busy over the last few days, so I haven't had a chance to thoroughly review your reply and respond accordingly, but that's no indication that I'm this Gastrich fellow? Wikipedia has my IP and registration details and they would verify this if that were necessary.

Thanks for the advice and no, I am not emotionally attached to this piece of writing at all! In fact, I welcome all who read here to contribute. My intestion was to create a starting point that removes the bias and unreferencable material from the current article. We can have a clean start with neutral framework and end the POV pushing on both sides.

Also, I would also welcome you, and everyone else, to respond to the various points, made above, on their merit and not based on a theoretical identity. My overall intention was to show that much of the material referenced in the current article, especially the site that labels Bob a "con artist" and a "fraud", do not meet the standards stated by Wikipedia for verifiable and therefore cannot be used and cannot be quoted. Just because someone puts something on a website does not qualify it as valid opinion or reference and most of the reference sites used lack any source material for their accusations and therefore fall under the category of "Self-Published" Sources.

For the record, I am not engaging in a form of "Hero Worship" by trying to clean up this article. I have met Bob Cornuke several times and I enjoy his work, but mostly I know how much of an inspiration he's been to some youth in my area, not for taking credit for various "discoveries", but for showing evidence the Bible is historically accurate. When I first read the article, I was suprised at how one-sided the material was and how terribly it represented Bob Cornuke and after studying about the concept of the site, I decided I should throw my hat into the ring and do my best to improve it.

That being said, I look forward to everyones responses on the material above. Have a good one!

--SYITS 00:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly well-known that Wiki will not reveal another user's information and, in fact, Gastrich's exposure of mine (even though it was never really hidden) was a point against him in the recent actions. Because of this, comments about the information that Wiki might possess are superficially useless. Still, there are admins watching and they have the authority to check on these things. If they find SYITS to be a legit non-Gastrich, I don't have a problem with that. The circumstances are suspicious enough, and the failure to understand nPOV even now are problems, in and of themselves; but I would never claim that those problems are limited to Gastrich. It is rather unusual for a new person to come in to Wikipedia and presume to lecture other users about what is and is not policy, what is and is not allowed, and what will and will not be edited, even to the point of warning that edits of which he disapproves or views negatively will be removed. SYITS has done this, and so has Gastrich. It is unusual behavior for a new editor. It's quite possible that SYITS is not a Gastrich puppet, but that just means that it's more likely that he's a "meatpuppet."

None of my comments about how the proposed article addresses the issues that are apparently of concern were addressed. The article is clearly biased in favor of Cornuke and my explanation as to how an encyclopedia should deal with controversial issues has not been rebutted. What this means is that, pending some sort of higher ruling, SYITS is certainly welcome to add appropriate information to the article, but he cannot whitewash it, as he has tried to do, already and as, suspiciously, it was tried before in almost the same ways.

• None of your points were addressed because none of my points were addressed! All that was mentioned was some vague references to "whitewashing" and "hero worship" and then all conspiracies about me being Gastrich. I will not have Wiki reveal my personal information, as it will certainly be exploited, but I am not hiding behind that. The only way it seems you've been able to answer my contentions is by attacking my identity. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also interesting that SYITS demonstrates some level of admiration, if not hero worship, while denying that any of this is "hero worship." It's quite clear that he cannot remain unbiased about the subject (while demanding that others be so). Wiki has some ideas about that, too, but we don't see them mentioned.

• The reverse is also true, you've shown your desire to defame the character of Bob Cornuke, so you your prediliction towards "hero bashing" seriously discredits your ability to deal with this subject in an unbiased fashion... --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The original article wasn't all that well-written. Later edits improved on that, but when edit warring commenced, the quality went down when trying to ensure that pertinent information remained. This means that the article could certainly stand improvement, but the removal or attempt at minimization information perceived as unflattering is not "improvement," it's whitewash. Let's remember what I wrote above with respect to what an encyclopedia is all about. My comments are not new information. They are not earth-shattering nor do they say anything new. Shucks, they're not even that well expressed; but they do the job. We're not here to write good things about Bob Cornuke. If he's going to have an article in Wikipedia, we're here to write the facts about him, whatever they may be. - WarriorScribe 04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• There would be a whole lot less warring if only valid sources were used. The current post invites a war because it is so inflammatory. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems SYITS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed a bunch of criticism [28] and the edit summary included "see discussion." I'm reading the discussion and there is no consensus on removing cited criticism. There hasn't been discussion for a few days. Arbusto

04:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• There was plenty of discussion, at least on my part, but no one answered (with any merit) a single point of contention on the material cited. So, I made a move to change the article and get you guys back in the game. These points cannot just be ignored. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not change "US Ambassador" to "former US Ambassador" because she was an Ambassador, a representative of the US government, when she was sued him. That change is not only incorrect, but it downplays the severity of Cornuke's actions. Arbusto 06:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• You said it yourself "she was an Ambassador"... Therefore, she is a now a "former" ambassador because she no longer is. Also, "severity" of Cornuke's actions? Hardly!!!! This was a civil law suit based on a "oral" agreement, there was absolutely no contracts signed or any other ifnormation produced as evidence. It was "she said he said"!!! He has never been convicted and her initial claims were tossed out by the Judge. I would say her actions are the one's in dispute based on the cited material, not Bob Cornuke's. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow...another Gastrich tactic...drop the subject, get the other participants into a sense that the discussion may have faded, then sneak in and just make white-wash changes...hmmm... - WarriorScribe 14:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have never changed the subject, the only subject you all keep wanting to discuss is me being Gastrich, I AM NOT!!! --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not Gastrich, I didn't drop any subject, debates on going. You seem to want to identify me as Gastrich rather than respond to my points above. No worries ;) --SYITS 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And then there's the rhetoric. Of course, I did respond to several points made above, making a few of my own, none of which got a response. It's looking more and more familiar all the time. - WarriorScribe 01:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• WarriorScribe, you seem to be living up to your name! Attacking other writers... You did not provide any substantial rebuttal to any of my contentions above. You only accused me of being Gastrich. Please provide evidence why these spurious sources in the article should be included and we can go from there, but stop with the accusations already! --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the rule book ad nauseam is classic gastrich. David D. (Talk) 03:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• The rule book was quoted because it is the foundation upon which this site was built and you all seem to need reminding of it. If you want to ignore the rules, there are other sites, but the rules allow people like me to edit out ridiculous material that others try and include in articles. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. And getting it wrong while presuming to dictate to others how it should be done are also Gastrich traits. - WarriorScribe 14:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Again, the only thing said about the objections is that I must be Gastrich! Geez guys, let's find something original here! Try responding to the points instead of the author... Besides, don't you think that if I were Gastrich, some admins would have kicked me off by now? Especially with all the controversy I've managed to stir up on this article!!! --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll say it, again: Encyclopedias exist to provide information. That information is to be as unbiased and neutral in POV as possible (given that it's human beings that do the writing). If the subject or personality is controversial in any way, the responsibility of the encyclopedia is to report that, as well as the why of the controversy. Cornuke's archaeological reputation, such as it is, exists within a specific kind of walled garden in the Christian community (what reputation that might exist outside of that walled garden, I've discovered, is that he's something of an amateur, at best...a charlatan, at worst), but he is controversial, even there. If there is to be an article about him, at all, it must include the information about that controversy and why there is controversy. It must do that without trying to excuse, minimize, or whitewash the controversy or provide convoluted excuses as to why reasonable sources should be excluded. - WarriorScribe 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• THEN PROVIDE INFORMATION NOT SPECULATION. Many of the articles sources are opinion and bias and have no basis in fact, otherwise, they would have references to their accusations. THERE ARE NONE BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY AREN'T TRUE!!! --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand Cult Watch Cannot be Referenced

Refutation of New Zealand Cult List as a source:

The cited source used in the current article http://www.cults.co.nz/index.php is an invalid source and cannot be used as a cited reference on this website.

Below are seven reasons, with highlights taken from Wikipedia's documentation, that outline exactly why this cannot be used as a source.

Reliable Source [[29]]

1. "...A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. An example of primary-source material would be a photograph of a car accident taken by an eye witness, or a report from that eye witness. A trial transcript is also primary-source material. Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript that has been published by the court. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research. "

This website does not qualify as a primary source for any of the information it contains. It is not a credible publication or source of news. It therefore cannot be used.

2. "...Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints."

It is evident that this is a strongly biased website, based on the views of one man, it's editor, Ian Mander [[30]], who holds extreme views on many subjects. It therefore cannot be used.

3. "Partisan Website

...Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues). "

This reference in this post clearly weighs the article in support of those with a negative view of Bob Cornuke. It therefore cannot be used.

Verifiability [[31]]

4. This is the Opening sentence of the policy:

"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers."

There are no sources cited for any of the accusations contained in this website, except the Christianity Today article, which never refers to Cornuke as a "fraud" or a "con artist". Therefore the quotes "fraud" and "con artist" cannot be used because they are not cited, except as the opinion of the site's editor. Therefore, this link cannot be used AND the terms "fraud" and "con-artist" CANNOT BE USED.

5. Because of the removal of the quotes identifying him as such, Cornuke must also be removed from the category of "Fraudsters" as no credible cited source makes this assertion.

6. This phrase of the current post:

"for the anchors from the Apostle Paul’s ship wreck (in the Bible: Book of Acts, chapter 27), which he claims to have found[32], but others deny[33]."

The source never denies that Cornuke found the anchors, so another source will have to be cited to make this claim.

The current article has been modified, keeping as much of the original material as possible, but removing any and all references from or to this New Zealand Cults List website. Anyone wishing to include this source must first prove that this is a worthwhile and necessary source for this article [[34]].

Another quote from the Verifiability Policty:

7. "Burden of evidence

...The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references."

I have laid out my proof above (as I did previously) and no one has been able to prove otherwise that this link and reference should remain. Therefore, the burden of proof is now upon whomever wishes to include a reference to this New Zealand Cults website.

--SYITS 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Its clearly not a primary source and it comes from an organization, a dictionary, on religion and cults. It is a trust worthy source. Also your edit removed commentary from the Christianity Today article. Arbusto 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's a real stretch to call a website produced by one dude a "dictionary". It doesn't come close to that definition! Read the about page for this site, it's edited by one guy, Ian Mander. There are no sources or references for any of the material, so it's his opinion, nothing more. Who says it's "Trustworthy"? You??? Who cares!! Name one other website that would use this as a "trustworthy" source and maybe we'll have a debate, but it clearly fails many rules established by wiki as a referenceable web site. Nice try and hardly a rebuttal to the comments above... --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This response falls well short of justifying it's use in this article. Please edit the current pot to fix christianity today commentary. It is one guy [[35]], and is in no way shape or form a reliable "dictionary" of information. You must provide proof of it's validity or find another source from which you can justify these claims. Again, for ALL of the reasons above, this cannot be used.

--SYITS 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this was a poorly-crafted argument. Quoting sections and then doing nothing more than virtually pointing and saying, "see!?" does not make an argument for exclusion. I was especially amused by the statement, "this reference in this post clearly weighs the article in support of those with a negative view of Bob Cornuke. It therefore cannot be used." Ssssoooo...because it cast Cornuke in a negative light, it is not to be used? There's nothing quite like making it very clear that one possesses a POV that is, for all worths and purposes, non-negotiable, and "SYITS" has done that with that statement, alone. He needs to stay far away from this article. - WarriorScribe 14:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• You say it's poorly crafted, but yet none of the assertions are refuted? If it's so bad, then blow holes in it! Otherwise, the criticisms stay and the site MUST be removed. And yes, the ONLY purpose this article is reference is be able to cite the terms "fraud" and "con artist". No other source makes these claims (gee, I wonder why, they aren't TRUE and no CREDIBLE news source would ever print such slander). So, the only purpose of this article is to skew the article to a negative perception of Bob. If offers no original source material or insight(as it's ONLY source on Bob Cornuke is the Christianity Today article, which already used extensively throughout the article). So yes, it's invalid because IT'S ONLY PURPOSE HERE IS TO SLANDER BOB CORNUKE. IT ADDS NO INFORMATION OR FACTS TO THE ARTICLE, ONLY BIAS AND ACCUSATION!!! --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WS these arguments are very poor. The quotes of policy are either taken out of context or misused. Negative sources are completely acceptable. Arbusto 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Again, if the arguments are so poor, then counter them!! No one has answered a single allegation brought forth! I am not discounting sources because they are negative, I am doing so because they are false and contain unverifiable, inaccurate information. Put all the unflattering material you want to on this post, but IT HAS TO CONFORM TO THE RULES AND BE FACTUAL, otherwise it must be removed. --SYITS 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame us for failing to present a coherent argument. Arbusto 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And that is, in fact, the case. Complaints about how we should blow holes in the arguments are spurious and disingenuous. I've already exposed the holes in the previous arguments, and there was no reply. The subsequent arguments were substanceless. There was very little to them. Finally, the complaints that the article exists only to "slander Bob Cornuke" (a serious charge, by the way, for which there is no justification) again exposes the POV of this "SYITS" character. Of course, the article was originally a bunch of cruft--nothing more than hero worship. I've already addressed that. Wikipedia doesn't exist for that purpose. We present the facts. If someone is uncomfortable with the facts, that's not a problem for us or for Wikipedia. - WarriorScribe 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Guys, read the entire text above, you'll notice my response to every one of your points above, highlighted and bullet pointed... --SYITS 02:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"I've already exposed the holes in the previous arguments, and there was no reply. The subsequent arguments were substanceless. There was very little to them." Responding to some of them today and then claiming that there is a response is disingenuous...exactly the sort of thing I'd expect of Gastrich. Meanwhile, "subsequent arguments were substanceless." Asked and answered. - WarriorScribe 02:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was not intended to be disingenuous, I have not had time until then to response. Notice, I signed each remark WITH A DATE, so people would know they were not immediate responses. Also, you can't just call the arguments 'substanceless' and leave it there, and you can't just keep accusing me of being Gastrich either, at some point, the contentions brought forward have to be dealt with. I have removed the offending link and cited material from the post. From here out, you must provide valid reasons to INCLUDE the article, according to the guildlines, so go ahead produce that argument, if possible. Otherwise, the link must go.... --SYITS 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of criticism

Do not remove anymore links. It must be decided through consensus on this page before altering criticism. Arbusto 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Then please explain how this NZ Cult List source conforms to wikipedia's guidelines and merits inclusion in this article, there has been no valid reason put forward to keep and plenty to remove it, besides, consensus is not at your discretion... --SYITS 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It conforms to WP:RS. Just because it is "negative" does not make it unreliable. Wikipedia policy wants neutrlity in the presentation, but that is not equated to being "nice" nor excluding criticism. Arbusto 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mt. Sinai claim debunked

Gordon Franz debunked both Cornuke and Wyatt's claims that the mountain is Biblical Mt. Sinai [36]. Arbusto 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the whether or not Mt. Sinai is in Arabia. Besides, Gordon Franz's assertions have many glaring problems as well so it's more appropriate to say Franz "claims" to have debunked Jabal Al-Lawz. Is this why you insist on putting these ridiculous links on this article? Are you a follower of Franz, a hero perhaps? Uh oh ;) --SYITS 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting response. However, this is criticism by Cornuke's opponents. When you factor in that there has been no independent scientific study to back up Cornuke's supposed discoveries Franz appears to be correct.Irregardless, this source of cited criticism should be included. Arbusto 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

POV of article

Take a look at my User page and you should realize that I'm not making any attempt to push my agenda here. Having said that, it's clear that

1. Not all the sources cited are entirely reputable.
2. The article goes a long way toward manipulating the reader into a conclusion that Mr. Cornuke is a fraud and con artist.

This is an encyclopedia. While Mr. Cornuke may be a controversial character, this article asserts he is involved in potentially illegal activities. Whether it is exposing the Foundation to possible liability is irrelevant. This article needs to be balanced from an unbiased point of view.

Make mention of controversy and be done with it. Don't hit the reader over the head with it. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Qualifications

What are his qualifications prior to the PhD. Did he get a PhD without a bachelors degree. If he did get a degree, what was it and where was it from?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a graduate (unaccredited) without an undergraduate degree is odd in deed. Which is why a mention of no evidence of an accredited education should be left in. Arbusto 19:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He has no accredited undergraduate degree at all? Is this certain? Please source this information. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No source for ANY undergraduate degree/college attendence. His website doesn't mention it, ect. Arbusto 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that his undergraduate degree was from an unaccredited christian school, but I a quick search doesn't turn up any info, so we should probably leave it out until someone confirms this. JoshuaZ 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on a undergrad degree-- strangely nothing on his personal site. Arbusto 20:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If he had one it would be on his web site. These guys live to show off their credentials. My bet is that he joined the police force young. Got in$pired by Ron Wyatt'$ profit$ from seeking the Ark and decided to use his investigative credentials for a similar purpose. My further speculation is that he realised that academic credentials would be quite useful and therefore enrolled in LBU to get a Ph.D. credential that would impre$$ the flock (I mean customer$). David D. (Talk) 20:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source for his undergraduate ACCREDITED education from Khouse, read **NOTES** area at bottom, Fresno State: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/153/ [[37]]--

Also, here's the citation for his speaking for LBU: http://www.lbu.edu/macfeaturedalumni.html [[38]].

I will be modifying the post accordingly. --SYITS 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Bob Cornuke is ...a former football star at Fresno State, and a legendary member of the SWAT team of the Costa Mesa Police Department."

Excuse me for being skeptical but being on the football team and graduating are two different things. He was a legendary member of the SWAT team? That last bit sums up the objectivity of that web site. David D. (Talk) 22:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The first website fails conditions for web sources to be citable. JoshuaZ 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I can say the very same things about that ridiculous Cult website used as a reference, so if that stays, so does this. --SYITS 22:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So does what? That he was on the Fresno State football team? It appears to be literally the only reference to his playing career and association to an undergraduate degree. What is the percentage of football players that graduate from Fresno State? David D. (Talk) 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay great he played football. Can we get a source on completing a undergraduate education? Arbusto 22:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice that he was not quite football star enough to make it on to the bulldogs sports alumni page. Is his stardom at football more hyperbole? David D. (Talk) 22:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The arguments that are being provided to justify the whitewash of this article are getting increasingly pathetic. - WarriorScribe 20:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, most people don't get a Ph. D without an undergraduate degree, here's at least a reference that he attended an accredited university for undergraduate studies (can't play football without taking classes), and presummably he graduated since he earned a Ph.D. I will locate a source for the Ph.D. --SYITS 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

His "doctorate" was mail ordered from an unaccredited "school" headed by a person without a single accredited degree. Lousiana Baptist "University" has questionable and abnormal education requirements. Get a source for this supposed accredited bachelor's because the rest of us simply aren't going to assume things. Afterall this man lied to the Saudi government to gain entry to that country; what reason do we have to believe he hasn't manipulated his credentials as well? Arbusto 23:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[indent] To add to arbustoo's comments, your logic works if he got a Ph.D. from an accredited university. However looking at the LBU requirements for a Ph.D. there is no mention of requiring an undergraduate degree. All that i could find is:

"The admission requirements for both the undergraduate and graduate programs are based upon the criteria of the institution. Admission is further based on individual approval of the Admissions Office."

So what are the criteria of the instituion?

"It is expected that the successful applicant for admission will have attained an appropriate educational level and will have demonstrated professional competence (or such potential) at a level which would prepare him/her for the academic program for which they are applying." [39]

So what are the appropriate educational level of the instituion? All i could find were the following four areas that they review for entrance to LBU. [40]

"To receive an evaluation of your previous formal studies as well as nontraditional learning experiences, simply forward the documents listed below:"

"1. Transcripts of all prior formal education at the postsecondary level."

"2. A schedule of self-study courses, seminars, workshops, and other informal education."

"3. A detailed resume of life experiences."

"4. At least three references."

So it seems there is no strict requirement for an undergraduate degree especially since they consider life experience. My guess is that being a legendary member of a SWAT team could be enough for a successful application. David D. (Talk) 23:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a fine example of why schools that fail to meet minimum educational requirements should not be allowed to award anything with the words: bachelors, degree, masters or doctorate. "Life experience" ... what a laugh. Arbusto 23:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh David D. (Talk) 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Malta reference to consistency

It simply isn't relevant, all the source saying is that it is vaguely possible that they might be anchors from the right time period. To pretend that that constitues useful or notable evidence is ridiculous. Its like if someone claimed to have found Captain Kidd's treasure and claimed as major evidence that someone had confirmed that what I had found might be a pit that might have been dug in the right time period. JoshuaZ 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because of the statement that was there prior that said there was no independent or scientific confirmation of his discovery, which this statement refutes. The Prof. independently verified that 1) Ancient anchors were found by Bob in Malta 2) that these anchors were of the time of Paul 3) these anchors were of the size and nature used by Rome for the grain vessel Paul and the others were aboard. There is nothing left of the boat, as the wood would have rotted away long ago, and anchors would be all that could survice. In the book, Cornuke lays out a very good case for the location these anchors were found being the exact spot described in Acts 27 where the shipwreck occurred. So, Cornuke finds anchors in the very spot he believes the Bible describes and gets independent confirmation from a scientist who knows the era like no other that these anchors were of the correct time period and from the right kind of ship to match the Biblical account. That's as much scientific and independent confirmation as could possibly be found for this kind of discovery, so his confirmation is not trivial or irrelevant. However, at stake is not the claim of finding the anchors, but to debunk the statement that no independent or scientific verification exists for the claim. --SYITS 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A little knowledge of marine archaelogy can go a long way. Anchors, anchor stones and other marine artifacts are found throughout the Medditeranean. They are very common. And it would be almost impossible to tell anchors from the year 60 with stones from 20 or 100. Considering how common such artifacts are, its ridiculous to cite that as "scientific confirmation" (and incidentally, wood from shipwrecks actually can last quite a long time under the proper marine conditions). JoshuaZ 16:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, so there's no way to trace a specific ship to a specific piece of wreckage, so the only "confirmation" possible is is that the anchors were of the right kind to be used on a ship as decribed in Acts 27 and of the right time period. Bob lays out the case for their location. Again, the book provides a detailed case that these could be the anchors of Paul, but there's obviously no way to prove it for sure. Please read the book before dismissing it completely and referencing what he "claims" to have found or not, it really is quite compelling. --SYITS 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A further note, the book details that because of the turbulent conditions that existed in the area, shipwrecks could not last very long, let alone over 1900 years as these were not the "proper marine conditions". --SYITS 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added Franz's review of the Maltese claim[41] to balance the section out. Arbusto 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so we all understand: The only people who really believe that the objects found are the anchors used by the ship, allegedly on which Paul was a passenger, as related to the story in Acts (which is, itself, a collection of unverified and unverifiable accounts), are those who want to believe it, so the Gastrich clone simply exposes, once again, that his/her view and the edits that are derived from that view are strongly non-nPOV. I'm not going to argue standards of evidence and science against someone whom clearly doesn't understand either of these things. It's a complete waste of my increasingly valuable time (and I can't help but wonder how a "legendary" police officer and former CSI could fail to understand, either, but that's another argument). Personally, I could care less, either way, about Cornuke, personally. What interests me is the unfettered, unadulterated truth, whereever it may lead. The fact is that the discovery of the anchors is a claim made by Cornuke and his fans, and that claim is disputed. Another fact is that there is no independent, objective, verifiable concensus within the scientific community, and nothing in the professional literature supporting the claim. It is, therefore, a claim that remains unverified and it's perfectly reasonable to point that out. Any attempt to remove that exposes the POV of the editor in question (in this case, the Gastrich clone, SYITS) and constitutes an attempt at whitewash. - WarriorScribe 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

An interesting fact from the Gordon article about this Professor claim. "They met Charles Grech, a (now) retired restaurant owner, who found the third anchor in front of the same underwater cave. Mr. Grech led them to a fourth anchor that might have been found off the Munxar Reef, but this was not certain. Prof. Anthony Bonanno, of the University of Malta, examined the third anchor stock in Mr. Grech's home." [42]Arbusto 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just not getting any better for Cornuke and his fans, is it? - WarriorScribe 03:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

TV appearances need dates, information, and need a better/complete/NPOV source

Currently the article states:

Cornuke has appeared on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, The 700 Club, and Fox Television’s Ripley's Believe It or Not.

We need to know when, what programs, for what, under what circumstances, ect. Also a better source than an unaccredited school that proudly promotes Cornuke should be referenced for such a claim. Was he on CBS' local news for a football game in 1980 or was it for something else? If these claims can't be backed up they should be removed. Arbusto 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree and was wondering the same thing. Sadly, knowing US TV, it was probably to sensationalise his Ark claims. David D. (Talk) 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a guess and say this particular claim can probably be backed up, although I've added a "citation needed" tag to that portion. It seems, however, that you're wasting an unbelievable amount of energy trying to ensure that every claim in this article meets objection. One has only to read the first paragraph to understand that Bob Cornuke is not the most respected individual in his field.

Frankly, for my standards I think the entire field is bogus, but then again, I believe there is ample evidence that many of these Old Testement stories are derived from legends that the Ancient Hebrews borrowed from the ancient peoples of Mesopotamea. But it's not my job to go around countering every biblical scholars' claims on wikipedia with facts in an attempt to create an indictment rather than a biography.

It's entirely obvious that Cornuke's appearances have been for self-promotion, and for myself, I don't question that he has been featured on any of those. I, personally, don't believe we need a citation. I don't think one enters the field of Biblical Archeology with the intent of helping starving children in Africa or curing SARS, or to prevent global warming. But the man has certainly made his name in the world and I don't doubt that someone will find the information behind the claim.

Please, stop trying to make the article into an indictment. Thanks. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 15:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point but if POV puchers are going to white wash the articles then they have to be patrolled. Wikipedia is being used as a tool to legitimise the dubious claims of biblical literalists. For years they have used testimonials but now through aggressive editing they can use wikipedia instead. I think arbustoo is doing a great job. David D. (Talk) 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not any kind of war, and we have no shortage of people to ensure that the article doesn't become an advertising promotion for the individual. But lets make sure it doesn't become an indictment either. Frankly, the people with the most information about the subject of the article are more likely than not also the people that are closest to the subject. While I will encourage persistence of citations, I would also like to discourage the tendency to blackball the individual.

And yes, Arbusto is doing a great job. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that blackballing is not a good thing. David D. (Talk) 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

His single appearance on each network has been confirmed and added. Arbusto 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Review actions 26-27 April 2006

A copyedit was undertaken by myself, in order to verify the contents of this article and ensure NPOV, as a result of a communication received. Please contact me on my talk page should you have any further queries on this matter. --Vamp:Willow 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

VampWillow, the article looks 100% better. Thanks for your hard work. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 12:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me as well. Arbusto 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Can we agree that all citations should be in one format? <ref>blah foo</ref>? Bastique▼^parler _voir 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, sorry for removing your reference edits, but they will be restored and we'll get the other ref's cleaned up as well. --SYITS 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The claims made by Cornuke's so-called "institute"

Someone, who I believe to be connected to Cornuke if not Cornuke himself, added in: "Bob Cornuke is not the only researcher who believes that the real Mt. Sinai might be Jabal al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia. Among other prominent researchers who also believe this are Frank Moore Cross, Professor Emeritus, Harvard University..."

Not only should a long list of other "prominent researchers" not be used to back up a general claim (it is Cornuke's evidence that is dispelled in the article) this is list is incorrect and deceitful. For example, Frank Moore Cross is a Harvard Divinity professor of languages not a history or archaeology nor even a professor at the actual Harvard UNIVERSITY.[43]

Not only that, but "In an interview with Hershel Shanks, Prof. Frank Moore Cross, retired professor of Hebrew at Harvard University opines that the mountain of God was located in the Land of Midian. When asked if he had a guess what mountain might be Mt. Sinai, he responded, "I really don't. There are several enormous mountains in what is now northwestern Saudi Arabia. Jebel el-Lawz is the highest of the mountain in Midian ­ 8,465 feet ­ higher than any mountain in the Sinai Peninsula; but biblical Mt. Sinai need not be the highest mountain. There is some reason to search for it in southern Edom, which was Midianite terrain before the expansion of the Edomites south" (Shanks 1992:32). He later put the "Midian Hypothesis" in print, but did not endorse any mountains for the location of Mt. Sinai (Cross 1998: 60-68)."[44] --Cornukechecker 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More: "The BASE institute site had some quotes from respected archaeologists which seemed to support the idea that Jebel al-Lawz was a good candidate for Mount Sinai. However, when I contacted some of these individuals, they assured me they never made such statements, neither did they feel Jebel al-Lawz was the real Mount Sinai. (Some of the information they posted at the time of this investigation, like the quotes from acknowledged archaeologists and scholars that suggest they supported the Jebel al-Lawz site have been removed from their site since then.) It became quickly obvious that some of the information on the BASE Institute site was not legitimate."[45] --Cornukechecker 04:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This factually questionable material was added again.[46] If this stuff is going to be put in its going to have to be independently verified no exceptions. It will also have to give these scholar's ideas and doubts say as well. Again, IF, it is put in, but I don't think questionable scholarly sources that don't explicitly connect to Cornuke's "discoveries" should be included. --Cornukechecker 21:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Syits isn't being honest. He added[47] a bunch of references making claims that these scholars back up Cornuke. When you view those sources: This[48] with Moller doesn't back up Cornuke; this [49] with Knuteson notes "None of the suggested sites in the Sinai Peninsula fit the biblical requirements," and this[50]] with Kerkeslager explained "Jabal al Lawz is probably the most convincing option for identifying the mountain with which Jews identified Mt. Sinai in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods."

So one can see that 1 scholar mentioned said nothing in the source cited about it (Moller), another doesn't believe any suggestion fits historically with the story (Knuteson), and the last one says it is the "most convincing" (Kerkeslager). Syits wasn't being honest with these quotes and didn't expect people to read them. Cornukechecker 10:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Syits lied and misrepresented quotes again. He added quotes from James Mulholland, which appear to contradict Franz, but when you read the source provided[51] (Mullholland's comments are at the very bottom) you see Mullholland agrees with Franz that Cornuke was wrong. In fact Mullholland notes, "Of course, we could pick each element of Mr. Cornuke's overall theory and propose other locations that could possibly match that single element. However, that's not the appropriate exercise here. The compelling nature of Mr. Cornuke's theory rests in the fact that ALL of the elements come together in one location. I could show you a place on the western side of the island where they possibly meet. However, that means nothing, because the depth structure on the western side of the island doesn't match the Biblical record." --Cornukechecker 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of education

His official biography does not mention any accredited or any expertise in history or archeology.[52] Since he and no other source makes the claim one can conclude he has no academic training in any field. Thus, this needs to be included with him making such controversial claims on supposed "discoveries." --Cornukechecker 21:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a negative assumption and is not logically sound. Also, refer to ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑'s comments regarding an "indictment". The only purpose of the statement at the beginning of the article is to discredit Cornuke and bias the reader. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia and violates NPOV.--SYITS 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding false material and excluding important details violates NPOV. The opening paragraph reads: "He is a former police officer and present-day Biblical archaeology explorer and the author of six books on biblical history relating to archaeological explorations. He has no formal training in archaeology or any accredited higher education degrees."

It is important so peopel don't confuse his claims without some you does real academic archaeology. --Cornukechecker 21:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

His lack of education in the field of archeology is important to a discussion on Cornuke's archeology "discoveries." Got a source that he has ANY credentials? It is important to note so peopel don't confuse Cornuke with an actual archeologist. --Cornukechecker 21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Education, or lack thereof, does not negate the EVIDENCE of his various finds. All of the other scholars I cited were independent refernces that all make the claim that Jabal Al-Lawz is Mt. Sinai, these did not come from Cornuke. Do not remove these just because you don't like them. Also, his lack of eduction is discussed on the post and there is no reason to place this statement in the opening article other than to make an indictment, which is not what this site is all about. I will continue to remove this statement as it's only intent is to tilt the perception of the topic. --SYITS 22:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't PROVE something DIDN'T happen. He has no credentials and is not an archaeologist. If you want to claim he has credentials then support it. An unaccredited degree tied to his business partner is BS. He has no credentials and it will be in there. Especially with the recent news[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50857] trying to pass him off as legit. Lacking degrees is important to put in the lead as others agree. --Cornukechecker 23:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph mentions archaeology three times and thus, it is important to note he makes no claims for any credentials in history or related fields. --Cornukechecker 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The current revision, which mentions his lack of formal training or education, but also mentions years of experience on expeditions, seems to me to strike a fair balance. Readers should be able to evaluate the relative merits of education vs. experience (without necessarily all reaching the same conclusion). Aardvark92 16:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)