Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Writing and Structure

I am heading off in a couple of weeks for a three-week lecture tour and would really appreciate it if some writing for this article gets done before I go. There are copious amounts of discussion going on here but very little actual writing of the article. We have had promises from folk who say they can/will do the spade work and some good ideas as to what should be included and how it should be structured, yet no-one now seems prepared to actually write anything. Have we not ironed out most of the issues? Have we not determined notability, credibility, significance, balance, reliability of sources?

Clearly I cannot write the original text of this article as several WP editors would claim COI and lack of NPOV, so somebody else has to do it. However, I think we have established that I can edit existing text where clarification or corrections to the NC theory is required.

To move things on and get the ball rolling, here are my proposals for the structure and content of the article based on suggestions made by contributors so far.

Based on John K’s four points of general structure:

a) provide context about the assumptions and provenance of the standard chronology

b) explain the arguments made by Rohl and any other notable NC proponents about why a chronological revision is needed

c) explain the implications of that revision on the broader history of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean worlds

d) explain what the reception to the New Chronology has been, especially among mainstream scholars

I would like to suggest the following section titles and content:

(1) Conventional Egyptian Chronology

Including the four pillars, but also the Sothic date from the late Middle Kingdom and Assyrian synchonisms, plus, if you wish, radio-carbon dating.

(2) The New Chronology (after Rohl)

Concentrating on the basic elements and bigger picture as to how it works. This section could include the challenges to the CC pillars without too much repetition.

(3) Evidence Adduced

This should deal with the three major TIP anomalies (Apis bulls, Royal Cache & Tanite tombs) and the genealogies, plus the astronomical evidence.

(4) Shishaq

This section is covered quite well, though I am not sure if explaining the NC theory requires the criticisms to go after each point. That is not only cumbersome but also long-winded with counter-arguments to the criticisms also necessarily to be included. Surely the specific criticisms should go in the later full and detailed section ‘Reception’?

(5) Implications for the Old Testament

Dealing with Solomon in the Late Bronze Age; the Conquest towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the Exodus in the late 13th Dynasty, the Sojourn in the late Middle Kingdom and first half of the Second Intermediate Period, and Joseph as a vizier under Amenemhat III.

(6) Implications for the Greek Dark Age

Including the Greek genealogies extending back from the Classical period (especially the Spartan kings), the evidence from Troy, the stagnation in Sub-Mycenaean and Proto-Geometric pottery development, and the place of Homer in this revised model. You could also include Anatolian archaeology and its dark age as well if you wish, and perhaps the implications for the early Roman foundation legends.

(7) Reception

This section needs to be greatly expanded and perhaps sub-sectioned (based on the major issues above). It should have all the ‘authoratitive’ criticisms - but not hearsay and opinions of non-experts with agendas. I cannot understand the view that it is legitimate to quote from these poor sources just because they exist. It is surely the duty of editors to provide expert opinion, not non-experts, spreading third and fourth hand, the views of experts (who’s original opinions have not come to light here after several people have searched for them). I would include Bennett as an expert as he is a genuine (though amateur) scholar. Thompson is only relevant if included in a general paragraph as to the reliability of the OT text. In fact, because he bases his criticisms on the absence of evidence using the conventional chronology, his quote is actually a powerful argument for revising chronology. The same goes for Finkelstein, Herzog and Dever. I wouldn’t dream of adding into the article praiseworthy quotes/opinions from non-experts in support of the NC, so why should you quote from non-experts in criticism of the NC? Please stick to quotes from genuine Egyptologists, academics and scholars. Then I, or others, can provide referenced counter arguments to the criticisms. This would be a long section but it is the logical place to put the detailed debate, not in the explanation of what the NC is.

(8) Identifications

This list could be expanded and improved.

(9) Major Dates in the New Chronology

Again, expanded and improved.

(10) Literature (11) References (12) External Links

I hope this is useful and can be actioned in some formDavid Rohl (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Foundations of conventional chronology

I know that Rohl has what he calls the 'four pillars', but should the article also state what mainstream archaeologsts see as the foundations of Egyptian chronology? 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Dougweller (talk)

Yes, I have just said that. Up to you to decide what those foundations are beyond what I have said.David Rohl (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, why isn't all this in the conventional chronology article?David Rohl (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that article is terrible, largely, I think. john k (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In some ways it would be a lot easier if we left the NC for a while and developed the conventional chronology article instead. At least if the conventional chronology article was mediocre, rather than pathetic, it would make it easier to cover the NC as a response to the conventional. Rd232 ^talk 10:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as the person responsible for the current form of the Egyptian chronology article, I warned everyone at the time that it was a rough draft & needed a lot more work. However, keep in mind what was there before I radically re-wrote it. I'd be as happy as anyone here if this article was worked on & improved -- since my rough draft was appeared, there has been disappointingly little attention given to its contents -- except for adding a section on alternative chronologies (which has said to be a copyright violation & removed), & someone who tried to add tangentially related material but couldn't explain why it was important. (As for Conventional Egyptian chronology, this appears to be little more than a list of reigns for ancient Egypt -- what someone would do who didn't understand the material in depth.) BTW, looking at the history of the Ancient Egypt WikiProject I am stunned at how fast it goes thru members; I never considered it had the potential for conflict & burn-out on the level of, say, Israel-Palestine issues or Balkan topics. -- llywrch (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

C14 dating

Ok, Tim Callahan is not an Egyptologist, but maybe he should be included:- speaking of Rohl's chronology, Callahan says "It is equally refuted by Carbon-14 dating. Rohl, not surprisingly, attacks the validity of radiocarbon dating, pointing out that discrepancies reduce the accuracy of dating and that a given date can have a range of plus or minus 200 years. But the carbon-14 dating of the wrappings of the mummy of Ramses II is ca. 1250 BCE, which is in fair agreement with the established chronology of his reign (1279-1212). Assuming a variation of plus or minus 200 years, the youngest his mummy wrappings could be is ca. 1050 BCE, or before the time of Saul, rather than during the rule of Rehoboam from 922 to 915. In other words, even using the most extreme of Carbon-14 dating ranges, Ramses would have been dead for over a century before Rehoboam came to the throne.Thus, he could not possibly be Shishak as Rohl claims." Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

All the more interesting then, Doug, when one actually bothers to look at the C-14 dates obtained by the French team when they examined the mummy of Ramesses II, rather than getting a second-hand report. The sample taken from bandages stuffed in the abdomen of the king and therefore presumed to be reliable (Gif-4019) gave a calibrated date of 1030 to 1100 BC +/- 70 years. This date is way below the 1279-1213 BC date for R II in the CC. Given that the NC does not accept the dendro-calibration used to adjust raw C-14 results downwards by several hundred years, this calibrated date is not applicable. NC would only be interested in the un-calibrated date. However, it just goes to show that C-14 results are not to be trusted. Needless to say, the French team rejected the low C-14 result and so it does not get any attention. Put simply, if the C-14 date don't fit, then dump it in a bag with the label 'contaminated' and don't bother your tiny little head about it anymore. Nobody is going to look in the dustbin for radio-carbon dates that don't confirm conventional chronology expectations. A shining example of the scientific method!

Then there is the matter of calibrated C-14 dates not fitting even with the conventional chronology for the early 18th Dynasty, or the Middle Kingdom or the Old Kingdom, getting progressively worse (i.e. older than the CC) as we work backwards.David Rohl (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

David, you really cannot use this page to put forward your own ideas in this way. It's not a forum. Please stop. This reference specifically mentions you. If you have other references that mention you and back you on this, great. If not, don't discuss it here. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you gave published sources for your claims; yours seems to come from Callahan's book "The Secret Origins of the Bible" [1]. If Rohl (or anyone else) has previously responded publicly to this point (source?) that can and indeed should be cited as well. On the other hand merely noting a primary source here which might cast doubt on Callahan's argument would be original research if it was put in the article. Rd232 ^talk 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd put in the name of the book. My bad. I of course agree with you that only a specific reply to this should be included, not something that just discusses the C14 dating. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference you want is B. Newgrosh: 'Living with Radiocarbon Dates: A Response to Mike Baillie' in JACF 5 (1992), pp. 62-63. Not 'original research' at all. I am not putting forward my own ideas, just countering your inaccurate source with another scholar's information about the R II radiocarbon dates you raised. Good enough for you?David Rohl (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the reference for the original scientific extraction of the sample and the radiocarbon test itself: 'La Momie de Ramses II' (Museum Nationale d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 1985), p. 261. Again not my original research but the research of one of France's most prestigious museums.David Rohl (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This brings up a worthwhile question - to what extent should the ideas of people like Newgrosh be considered to be part of the subject of this article? Is this article only about things Rohl himself has written on, or is it about a broader movement of like-minded writers who have? john k (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an article about the New Chronology, not David Rohl. The Glasgow Chronology has never been labelled 'New Chronology' accept here at WP. Fomenko's 'New Chronology' is later than the Rohl et al. New Chronology and should therefore be the one to be distinguished from the original New Chronology. So I would much prefer this page to be called simply 'New Chronology' (without '(Rohl)'), the Glasgow Chronology to be called just that, and Fomenko's version to be called 'New Chronology (Fomenko)'. That way the other New Chronology researchers, who have contributed substantially to the theory in several aspects/disciplines, can get their proper dues. NC is not just about Rohl, he has his own WP page for that.David Rohl (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a potentially helpful suggestion, I've had niggling discomfort from excluding other NC authors. I'm not really clear though how a wider NC article would handle agreement and disagreement between different NC authors. I mean I guess it can be done, but it'll complicate things even more, won't it? What does anyone else think? Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is the basic principle of NC - that the CC needs to undergo a radical revision - something which all NCers agree upon; and then there is the specific dating scheme which is offered in substitution of the CC. It is important to stress that the NC is not set in stone and is 'work-in-progress'. No dates are 'fixed' in the sense of being sacrosanct. Everything is open to discussion and correction/adjustment. The amount of total reduction in years is neither fixed throughout the timeline or established as a tenet of the NC. The oft-quoted 350 years is merely a ball-park figure which applies to the late 18th Dynasty point in time and even that can shift by decades. A general description of the basics of the NC is not too difficult to put together here, which could include all those opinions and research of New Chronologists. Anything beyond a 50-year adjustment either side of the ball-park dates would probably not be considered 'New Chronology' but something more a like a 'revised chronology'.David Rohl (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)That sounds reasonable and helpful, but we'd need some sources that would justify that without slipping into OR territory. Do we have sources which (even if only briefly) give that sort of an overview of the NC? Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to C-14 dating and Doug's quote from Callahan. Here are some other quotes for you: "When we last left Tim Callahan with Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment, we delivered a harsh assessment of Callahan as one working outside his field. This latest work delves into several areas beyond my expertise (OT archaeology), but from the sections of which I do have significant topical acquaintance, it appears that Callahan has learned little or nothing in the intervening years." Apparently the book from which Doug quotes is "riddled with outdated source material", whilst in his sourcing "you won't find any references to any peer-reviewed journals, other than newsstand popular items". In addition "it is obvious that Callahan did no more than visit his local library and use what resources he found there, and then presumed that there was no more to be found". "Callahan also repeats some of the same errors as he did in his prior book, as well as many new errors" resulting in the critic's conclusion "that Callahan is not credible as a Biblical commentator." [2] So, Doug, you are right to say he is not an Egyptologist, but he seems also not to be a biblical scholar or radiocarbon specialist. So what is he? Do you really think he is a reliable source? An authority (as per WP guidelines)? Given the actual info I supplied about the C-14 samples tested from the mummy of Ramesses II, do you maintain that the statement which you quoted is either correct or reliable? To 'quote' (in an abstract kinda way) another contributor here:

Doug, you really cannot use this page to put forward your own POV. It's not a place to quote from every creationist and non expert. Please stop. This reference which specifically mentions Rohl is a poor reference, sourced to a non-authority from outside the field - as most of your references here have been. If you have other references that come from reliable and authoritative sources, great. If not, don't put up poor, principally amateur or creationist, sources here.David Rohl (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

David, can you please pause to look at this page and count the number of times your signature appears? Or the percentage of text on it that is coming from you? You should not be here. Yes, it would be ok if you just pointed out some inaccuracies from time to time, we should always remember to be reasonable, but it is simply impossible to work on this article if you keep up some sort of author's blog on the talkpage. Please stop it. Otherwise, we will be forced to create some sort of "David Rohl's corner" subpage to this talkpage and move all your comments there. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in the proportion of your comments which are attacking others without critical engagement with the article. Rohl just provided some externally-sourced (less sure if it's an WP:RS - we can discuss that) criticism of a source previously provided. In what way is that a violation of WP policy? You don't seem to see how valuable it is to have Rohl's expertise here on this difficult topic which is not otherwise well covered on WP. Obviously Rohl's comments always need to go back to published sources but they generally do. You must accept that Rohl may constructively contribute to this talk page, which is precisely what he is doing. You do realise, qua admin, that attempts to drive editors away are usually highly frowned upon? But that is essentially what you are doing. Rd232 ^talk 10:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

read WP:COI. If Rohl had the capability to "write for the enemy", it would be fine. But he has shown time and time again that he is just there to push his own views. Expertise is a good thing when used to present a case from all angles with intellectual honesty. It becomes harmful when it is used to push a minority view beyond its due and it becomes unacceptable when used by authors to push their own work. No, Mr. Rohl is not contributing constructively in this sense. Mr. Rohl is more than welcome to work on our articles on Egyptology in general, but it speaks volumes, imho, that he chooses to dedicate all his time on Wikipedia to patrolling the article about his own publications. The last straw is how Rohl is telling Doug to "you really cannot use this page to put forward your own POV" and criticizing sources of "non-authority from outside the field" -- well, if that is a problem, perhaps the theory should have been published, like, within the field instead of on TV. It has become clear that what we have here is an item of pop culture. Hence the article needs to treat it as pop culture, with a brief paragraph establishing that it has no credibility in scholarship. If we can agree on this very simple point, I will also be able to stop playing the "bad cop" here, and we will be able to clean up the article and remove the warning tags. I will forgo further calls to review {{notability}}, as altough I think this is a borderline case, it probably passes the "Pokemon test", along with other topics of popular revisionist theories such as those of Heribert Illig. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will stay out of this ... but just to remind you that my view is simple, if you are not prepared to put the NC case accurately and prefer to rely on hearsay and non-specialist review material, then my preferred option is to have the NC article removed from WP. An article that does not explain the case accurately should not exist.David Rohl (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I repeat that the notability of the NC is due to a TV series, and hence a "specialist review" would be the opinion of a professional television critic. --dab (𒁳) 08:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::We certainly should discuss Rohl's source - Robert Turkel (who writes under other names as well) and tektonics.org, definitely not a reliable source by our standards. Turkel's article was deleted some time ago. He's known for his boorishness by the way. rd232, Rohl has definitely used this talk page at time to argue his own case from his own expertise, not from his published work, and that's not appropriate and is COI in my opinion. My pov, by the way, is simply that it is a struggle to keep the article WP:NPOV and avoid OR. I am clearly not a Creationist and I don't even recall mentioning any Creationist sources, although Rohl keeps suggesting I have (maybe I'm wrong, but he seems to have confused me with someone else). And I'm not going to argue if the C14 stuff is right or wrong, that's not the purpose of this page or even Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So Callahan isn't a great source, and neither is the critic Rohl mentioned. That happens a lot on this topic, doesn't it? Better would be using Callahan (or someone else) to find better sources to talk about relevant Carbon-14 issues. Rd232 ^talk 11:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not convinced we can't use Callahan (although I'm not pushing hard here now). If WP:FRINGE covers this, I'd say we certainly can. And I think it probably does. It says something that, as you say, this happens a lot on this topic. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of WP:FRINGE. Callahan is citing/interpreting academic research - we should go and get that. Problems might arise if that research isn't specific enough to chronology, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Rd232 ^talk 09:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

biblical minimalism

since this came up, a simple google book search gives us all of 18 hits for the term, among these titles like "Let No One Mislead You: Discovering the Biblical Truth Left Behind in End-Time Sensationalism", and including usage of the term in two entirely unrelated senses, once referring to the literary style of the Psalms, and once referring to minimal use of the bible in Christian service. And, of course, use in discussions of ""so-called 'minimalism'" detailing why the term is flawed. Finally, still exploiting just the 18 hits mentioned, here we have it explicit, Minimalism is "a term of abuse from reactionary Hebraists ... [and] in biblical studies generally".

This discussion belongs on Talk:The Copenhagen School (theology). "Biblical minimalism" in this sense refers exclusively to a position of skepticism towards the historicity of the United Monarchy (Solomon and David). The term already assumes it is understood that the Patriarchs, the Exodus and Joshua's invasion of Canaan are not to be taken as historical. The focus of attention is the historicity of the biblical account of the period 1000 BC to 600 BC. It is understood that the bible has no historicity for the period predating 1000 BC, and that it does have historicity for the period postdating 600 BC.

For the purposes of this article, it is clear that labelling a critic as a "minimalist" is just another attempt to inflate Rohl's credibility by pretending his critics are somehow close to a "minimalist" or "skeptic" fringe. You do not need to be a "minimalist" to reject Rohl's various identifications of Biblical figures as wild-eyed fantasy. Whatever the merit of his discussion of Egyptian chronology, the tangent into "biblical maximalism" does nothing for it except making it appear more cranky than necessary. --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this minimalism/maximalism issue really about? And isn't it the wrong perspective anyways? If archaelogical findings can be interpreted in a way so that the biblical narrative falls into place with that interpretation, then that is something completely different than starting out with the bible in hand and trying to find supporting material at all cost. The biblical material is not the main focus of the New Chronology, it just ends up fitting the new chrnological framework. And to go on from there to fill some gaps in the archaelogical and non-biblical record with information from the bible is quite ok (as long as one leaves the fancy divine interference stuff out). Biblical minimalsism exists because in the conventional chronology the biblical narrative has no standing whatsoever on the grounds of archeological research. But since Rohl has come up with a different chronology in which there is room for some parts of the biblical narrative then this does not make his NC automatically an attempt of biblical maximalism that is to be contrasted with biblical minimalism. One must not confuse cause and effect here. Terms such as biblical minimalism/maximalism should be left out of the article, since they do not really have anythingbto do with the issue of it. Cush (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"This discussion belongs on Talk:The Copenhagen School (theology)." I think that's the main point. Personally I didn't realise that "Biblical minimalism" was a contentious term; I thought it just described a particular view. But OK, it seems to be a pejorative term. Rd232 ^talk 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

the question is, what do you mean by "can be interpreted in a way". Of course you can interpret evidence any way you like. If you desperately want "the biblical narrative to fall into place", you can of course do that. You can also have the Eddaic narrative fall into place, or anything else that catches your fancy. The price in either case is simply that you rape the critical method and leave it for dead in a puddle of blood. There are, needless to say, many people indeed who are ever so glad to pay that price. I appreciate that Rohl's ideas aren't just about the bible, and I have already stated that they would be better off by leaving out the biblical stuff altogether. But since Rohl did decide to bring up these biblical "identifications", the article will also have to take that rather unhappy angle into consideration. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow dab! Do you always get your feelings so hurt when someone makes a good-faith edit that contradicts your personal ukases? The term "biblical minimalism," or "minimalism" may be used as a slur in some quarters, but that does not mean that the term is itself a slur. Take the term "liberal" in the United States (see: Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#Negative_use_of_the_term_.22liberal.22), which some folks use perjoratively and others use with pride - still, the term is used by academics, historians, etc. "Minimalist" is a proper term. Take the title of the appendix from Israel Finkelstein's David and Solomon: "Did David Exist? The Minimalists and the Tel Dan Inscription." (Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Silberman. David and Solomon. New York: Free Press, 2006.) Finkelstein is a far cry from the "bible nuts" dab references in the first paragraph of this section. Take the first paragraph of this appendix: "According to a certain school of though within biblical studies—sometimes described as historical minimalism—the various David and Solomon stories... are late and largely fictional compositions." This seems to be what Thomas L. Thompson means when he "[insisted that any attempt to write history based on a direct integration of biblical and extra-biblical sources is] not only dubious but wholly ludicrous." Let's take a more mainstream publication, Time Magazine. Take this article from the December 18, 1995 issue entitled "Are the Bible's Stories True?":

Prior to that, though--before about 930 B.C.--the experts disagree on just about everything. At one pole in this scholarly version of Crossfire is the group known as the maximalists, who consider the Bible a legitimate guidebook for archaeological research. At the other are the minimalists, or biblical nihilists, who believe the Bible is a religious document and thus can't be read as any sort of objective account. "They say of Bible material, 'If it cannot be proved to be historical it's not historical,'" explains Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus of Oriental languages at Harvard, who puts himself somewhere in the middle."

Again, "minimalists" and "minimalism" isn't necessarily a pejorative term, but an accepted label. And if Thomas L. Thompson quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...

And, this is important to this article because minimalists decry Rohl's use of the Bible as a historical document no different, than, say, the Taylor prism.

TuckerResearch (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting off topic, and a little heated. Take it to Talk:The Copenhagen School (theology), where there's a current debate on what to do with that article. Rd232 ^talk 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rohl in biblical literalism

I really think the following is an appalling piece of writing which is highly misleading:

"Rohl's theories, because of their apparent support for Biblical literalism, have also been noted in creationist literature. Thus, Berthoud (2008) contrasts the "near-unanimous" rejection of Rohl's theories in Egyptology with the "sensational effect" his books, combined with the television series, had on the general public.[25]"

This implies that the 'general public' are predominantly biblical literalists and creationists. That is nonsense. The general public are not all Egyptologists or biblical scholars, and neither are they scientists, but they still went out and bought Hawkins 'A Brief History of Time' because they were interested in the intellectual challenge. The same applies to A Test of Time which was bought by people interested in Egyptology, ancient history, the Old Testament narratives, historical detective work and for a host of other reasons. They were not all fundamentalist Christians. There is absolutely no connection between the opinions of Berthoud (himself a creationist) who has no expertise or knowledge of Egyptological opinion or consensus and the general public who bought the book. Will somebody please either remove this nonsense or rewrite it to make sense and to present a NPOV.David Rohl (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't read this that way, because it says "general public". More problematic is the first sentence fragment "Rohl's theories, because of their apparent support for Biblical literalism..." That's vague and weaselly, and I'm pretty sure Biblical literalism is not the correct reference. It should say that the theories have been picked up by creationists (and others in this area?) because they imply a greater historicity of some parts of the Bible. Rd232 ^talk 09:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can the position of creationists towards Rohl's work be sourced please? Creationism is in fact assaulted directly by Rohl's theory, because the latter deals also with the Eden-story (directly related to creation and its -ism) but removes all divine interference from it. Biblical literalists in respect to the story of the Israelites on the other hand might indeed be sympathetic to Rohl's theory as it opens a possiblity for biblical accuracy as an account of actual history (without the divine interference there of course). Cush (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

um, it already is sourced? (to this). No problem finding other instances, such as here. In these circles, cherry-picking is done as a matter of course, probably not even consciously. You just embrace whoever comes up with ideas you already knew to be true.

I agree that the Berthoud section can be improved. It is an excellent example of Rohl being employed to back biblical literalist creationism. Berthoud (2008) is a book dedicated to defending Biblical literalism against scholarly criticism. Berthoud discusses Rohl's views over several pages and uses Rohl's results to back his claim that creationism can be argued scientifically. Berthoud accepts Velikovsky's views, and his criticism of Rohl is to the effect that Rohl obscures the "pioneer insights" by Velikovsky. This is, of course, the exact opposite of academic criticism of Rohl, which takes it for granted that Velikovky's ideas have no merit, and for which the only redeeming features of Rohl are those that set him apart from Velikovsky.

So, Mr. Rohl, how about you show your capability for neutrality by attempting to cover Berthoud yourself, i.e. improve the paragraph you object to by a more detailed discussion of the role played by the NC in Berthoud's book.

To Rd232, yes, "biblical literalism", or perhaps "believers in biblical inerrancy" is the accurate term. This is exactly what Rohl is being used for.

Vide Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate (2007) I link above. This book is explicitly dedicated to showing biblical inerrancy by means of sorting out a chronology that is 100% compatible with the Pentateuch. In the very words of the author, "I am a devout believer in the inerrancy of the Bible". The Egyptian chronology is just one step in this enterprise, and is consequently given one chapter, "Synchronizing the Biblical and Egyptian Chronologies" (pp. 73-89), which is, of course, significantly indebted to Rohl's NC. --dab (𒁳) 10:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It should just be taken care that the reception by "believers in biblical inerrancy" is not given undue weight in comparison to presenting the NC as a whole. Cush (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have been specifically invited to rewrite this section on the evangelical/creationist reaction to the NC, I will have a go. But I agree with Cush that it should be brief and to the point. The point being that what other people/pressure groups do with a theory is up to them and not the author of the theory. The author's position should be stated clearly, then if others choose to run with aspects of the theory for their own political ends, so be it. I cannot change that. That applies to all theories. There are crazy or misguided people out there (especially on the net) and I cannot be held responsible for what thy think or write. I would have thought that was obvious.David Rohl (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done what I can for now, but I think it could be improved with some better evangelical quotes. The references need sorting out as well as I am still getting my head around how that is done here. Feel free to add/subtract or criticize, but let's get the damn thing near finished eh?David Rohl (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To Rd232: I think you are wrong to shorten the quote from The Lost Testament as it directly relates to the Thompson point that immediately follows. As you have shortened it, it does not make a lot of sense. Otherwise you edits are fine by me, though I think we need an evangelical pro-Rohl quote for balance.David Rohl (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get better what you were trying to say, and I've copyedited accordingly. It's probably still a bit long, and possibly the quotes would be better paraphrased. But I think it's fine for now and we should move on to other things, there's far too much work that needs doing to get bogged down in copyediting at this stage. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I did feel the need to move the Thompson/Rohl para from "Reception", since clearly no part of it falls under that heading. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is going to do the writing to complete this article?

I have been waiting patiently for someone to actually complete the draft writing of this article. We have had a couple of offers but no-one has actually done anything. What is the problem? Are writer editors feeling intimidated? Is everyone on vacation? Does no-one have the time? Are there worries about not knowing the material? Seems strange to me that so much can be written about principles, rules, guidlines and regulations, yet no substantial expansion of the article occurs. Because of this distinct lack of enthusiasm for the writing process, would you please all give me your permission to expand the 'Implications' section so that it covers all the major missing elements? I know the material and understand the theory, so I can do this with both hands tied behind my back. You will just have to ignore the COI issue for now and simply edit out/replace what you don't like. I can't see any other way to get this done as nobody is stepping up to the plate to do the job.David Rohl (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of the difficulty of the topic and the bad atmosphere that's blown through this page at times. You're welcome to contribute some material, but I'd very highly recommend that you do so on a WP:Usersubpage. Copy the current article text to User:David Rohl/NCdraft (copy the current text even if you plan a complete rewrite - it makes diffs with the current version possible), say, and work on it there. Then when it's ready post here and we can discuss it, and go from there. Rd232 ^talk 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have said that I wanted to enhance the article, and I still want to. However, at the moment my job keeps me from sitting down to concentrate on such a task for the required time. I'll be traveling for at least another week, and maybe then I will find the time to finally put something together. Greetings Cush (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now added an expanded version of the Implications section at User:David Rohl/NCdraft but it only displayes the first half of the text. The rest is sitting in the edit text box but does not show on the user page. I have no idea why this is. If someone can fix it please? Then can you sort out the references (still can't get that right), sort out the links, and add anything you think is pertinent or remove what is inappropriate. Thanks.David Rohl (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the tags. For the future, you put <ref> to start the tag, and then </ref> to end it. That looks like a reasonably accurate summary to me. What do other people think? john k (talk13:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems that bothered so I am going to put it up on the article page and people can mess with it there.David Rohl (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest edit

I've raised this at WP:COIN here as it is my belief that Rohl should not be making such major edits to this article. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree that it would probably have been better for him to ask someone else to introduce the material he drafted, but he did do a separate draft first, and no-one objected to the content. Do you see any particular problems introduced? Rd232 ^talk 09:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe like me others weren't following this close enough to see there was a draft. Looks to me as though he is using the article to argue his case, this is OR. This talk page would have been the appropriate place to discuss the edit in any case.Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well 3 other people edited his draft, one specifically commenting on the talk page above that it looked fine. What part of the edit is OR? As far as I can see it is all supported by sources. (Also it's merely an expansion of the previous content - it's not like it's radically new.) Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's the source for 'indirectly challenges'? Do the sources in the next two paragraphs mention Rohl? It very much looks like OR/synthesis to me - it would be fine in an article by Rohl, but the stuff in this article should all discuss the New Cronology directly and specifically. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I give up! This is just shear malice. I have never known such pathetic nonsense. What ever happened to common sense? Whatever happened to good will? There is nothing in this edit which is not part of the theory and it is fully supported by quotations and references from independent scholars. It was put up as a draft. You, Doug Weller, ignored it. Nobody else is writing anything for this article, so somebody has to do it. There is no self-promotion here, just an explanation of the implications of the revised dating. This isn't theoretical OR, they are IMPLICATIONS. Why do you dispute them? Why do you reject the published statements by scholars and experts? You, Doug Weller,have contributed zero positive input on this article but instead indulged in constant sniping. You just can't help yourself Doug can you? You clearly have a COI here, as you can't tolerate the idea of this article getting finished off and accepted by others. Please take your anti-Rohl prejudices elsewhere.David Rohl (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

you see, this is what happens when people with a vested interst edit articles: other people need to spend their time scrutinizing the additions for synthesis and misrepresentations. Doug is doing a great job at this thankless and tedious task. Perhaps you, David, could see your way to editing some topic not directly related to your publications. I am sure there must be some topic other than your own media image that catches your interest. If you could do that, this article could be developed by authors without a vested interest in a much more relaxed atmosphere. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I don't see how you can blame other people that you weren't paying close attention to this talk page, where the proposed text has been linked for nearly a week. The material could be better sourced, but I'm dubious that there's anything that's really OR here. The material is basically just discussing the implications of the New Chronology. For that purpose, (published) sources from Rohl himself are fine, and I don't see anything here which strikes me as in conflict with that. Each individual statement ought to be sourced to Rohl's (or other NC advocates') published writings, if possible, or else to critics of the theory, and anything which cannot be sourced to that should be removed. But looking at it, it looks to me like a fairly accurate précis of what Rohl says in the book (although it's been years since I was skimming Pharaohs and Kings at a bookstore, so take that for what it's worth.) That's not to say it can't be improved, and we need to be careful that we are merely describing, rather than advocating, the implications of the new chronology, but I don't see that we need so much drama about it. john k (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not blaming other people, I'm saying others may have missed it also. Are you condoning Rohl's accusing me of malice and of having a COI? His response to me is just a personal attack without discussing the actual issues. Shouldn't there be a source for 'indirectly challenges'? Shouldn't the sources in the next two paras mention Rohl? I note that Rohl says "they are implications" - do you have no problem with that? Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should take a single frustrated outburst too seriously. I also think you should cut a bit more slack here, and I certainly think your posting on WP:COIN is over-reaction at best (and you must be able to see that it could feel like bullying). Anyway, it is clear that these things come from Rohl's published work; but the attitude that Rohl's work is unpeer-reviewed populism has led to some attempts to link the general points on which he relies with other sources. This leads to some problem about how to handle this - unless Rohl's published work is expected to prove every point he relies on de novo, is introducing sources that support general points OR? About the "indirectly challenges" - it's a fairly innocuous statement on its own, which needs major expansion to clarify that radiocarbon and dendrochronology at least partially support the conventional chronology, and at least partially contradict the NC, but that Rohl and perhaps others also critique those. That's been discussed on this talk page, but (like everything on this topic) it needs research to get the sources that would have anything to say about that. PS As for the implications - isn't it obvious that these are implications which Rohl draws in his published work, and that it's merely reporting those? Rd232 ^talk 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see how my post could seem like bullying. I wanted an uninvolved view, how is that bullying? Here I just get abuse (this is not new, he has a record of it since he started editing again). And yes, what you are describing is what, I believe, is considered to be original research/synthesis. I deliberately have not raised these issues at NOR, perhaps you would like to? Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't want to argue about the "bullying", it is was only a passing remark - but if you can put yourself in Rohl's shoes you should be able to see how it might feel that way to him: it's not like the COI thing hasn't been discussed to death, or like there aren't other editors aware of the issue, or like he didn't post a draft which 3 people implicitly gave their approval to (one explicitly). By contrast, posting at WP:NORN at that point might have been precipitate (better to raise your concerns here first), but at least it would be focussing on specific, fixable issues. Even at this point, a NORN post is maybe slightly premature - you still haven't clearly said what the problems are. Anyway, a second opinion from a different audience may be valuable, either now or after a bit more discussion. Rd232 ^talk 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PS So let's say you publish a book on widgets, which makes some controversial theory about the production of widgets and relies on the fact there is such a thing as steel, which has certain recognised properties. If you (or someone else) then write a WP entry on the theory, is it OR by WP:synthesis to introduce other sources which show that steel has those properties? Is anything not written down in the book or directly addressing the theory impermissible material for the article? If not, where do you draw the line? Rd232 ^talk 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

-

Any specific issues should be dealt with in the normal way - ask for sources, and the like. Rohl shouldn't have accused you of having a COI, or accused you of malice, but I don't think anyone has been behaving particularly well here. At any rate, as rd232 says - these are not implications of the work being made up by Rohl on the spot. They are the implications which he draws in his published writings. Rohl's published writings talk about Saul and Labyu, and acknowledge that it would mess around with Assyrian chronology (which Newgrosh's writings try to tackle more directly), and so forth. Maybe calling them "implications" is what's wrong here - I think the point is that Rohl's chronological innovations are based, supposedly, on internal problems with the Egyptian chronology - this is the evidence he used to say that a chronological revision is necessary. The rest of it is "implications" because these are changes which follow from Rohl's down-dating of Egyptian chronology. But perhaps it would be better to use a different term. As far as any specific issues, we should demand sources and the like, but, as I said, most of this seems either uncontroversial (do we really dispute that Hittite chronology is tied to Egyptian chronology?) or else they simply represent a restatement of material in Rohl's published work. At any rate, to assess the situation in this article more broadly, it is obviously problematic to have the author of a theory which has been, at best, largely ignored and implicitly rejected by academia, here on Wikipedia editing the article about his own work. Coming from this as somebody who does not believe Rohl's theories are correct, and who is concerned that people coming to this article come out of it with an accurate view of the fact that most scholars do not think he is correct, Rohl's participation needs to be carefully watched, and his contributions need to be carefully policed for OR and POV issues. We also need to try to be careful to keep on topic - Rohl has a tendency to try to get into detailed substantive arguments about NC on the talk page, and we really need to avoid that. That being said, it also presents an opportunity to get a better article about the subject. Rohl has been a lot more reasonable than a lot of the fringe POV pushers we encounter on Wikipedia - see all the nonsense that goes on at Shakespeare authorship pages, or even just the nonsense we get from nationalist POV pushers. The key is to be careful and to work on specific issues. john k (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just on the OR issue, I have been told very clearly before that in discussing a book, we should only use sources that mention the book, not sources that discuss the subject of the book. This article should represent what reliable sources say about the New Chronology, not an argument for or against it. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That means what we need to do is source this material to Rohl's published works. john k (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the edits that you have made to the article since this section was started have been to the parts that I did not write that were already in the article. Just an observation.David Rohl (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Taken literally, that seems to mean, for example, that (a) we can't say that the Hittite chronology is linked with the Egyptian chronology unless Rohl says so in a published source, and (b) we can then only say "according to Rohl, the Hittite chronology is linked with the Egyptian chronology". The only exception to that would be if someone commented on the New Chronology and in doing so pointed to that link! That seems frankly incompatible with WP:NPOV at least (giving a false impression that everything Rohl says is novel and not based on shared foundations, widely accepted facts, and ideas shared by some others - in addition to some novel points and an overarching framework which has relatively little support), not to mention common sense. WP:NOR does not trump every other policy (it's not even one of the five pillars - NPOV is). OK, so I appreciate that it's better to cite sources which Rohl cites in his published work (eg X, as cited by Rohl page Y), but for widely accepted facts, this seems overkill. The issue of WP:Synthesis is that novel conclusions should not be made by putting Source X with Source Y. Established facts are not novel conclusions, and supporting them with sources, whether Rohl cites them or not in support of the points he has made which we're describing, should be permissible. Rd232 ^talk 20:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral" language confusing, rather than explicating things

I see that Rohl's original draft included the following:

Redating the floruit of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Qadesh and revise the linked chronology of Hittite history, it would also require a less severe revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 911 BC.

Rd232 replaced that with the following:

According to Rohl, redating the floruit of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Kadesh and revise the linked chronology of Hittite history, it would also require a less severe revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 911 BC.

What good does that do anyone? Redating Ramesses II would obviously require a revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 911 BC. Does anybody dispute this? The fact that it would do so is, in fact, one of the most-cited arguments by critics of Rohl. Maybe the contention that this revision would be "less severe" is only according to Rohl, but it does no good to treat commonplaces as though they are unsupported assertions by Rohl. I'm going to remove both "accoridng to Rohl" and "less severe." john k (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you also replace 'floruit' - a great word, but I doubt that it's the best word for our readers. Or, as I've done here, link it? Although it looks ripe for deletion as a dictionary definition. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

God bless the English language and all who sail in her! Maybe WP articles should be written in text message style? Perhaps then more people would understand this encyclopaedia's content? May the floruit be with you!David Rohl (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny. But I wouldn't care to guess what % of English speakers know the word. I don't know it as an English word, and that's saying something. (I got it from distantly-remembered Latin.) Rd232 ^talk 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way John, the lines you edited back to the original were not (to my knowledge) written by me. They came from the original article. However I agree with all your recent edits. They are correct and to the point. I don't think we need to keep saying 'According Rohl, black is black and white is white'. There has been too much of that sort of thing going on here. Whilst no-one actual generates any actual text to the article. Strange, lots of editors but no writers. It that what WP is like then? Lots of chiefs but no indians!David Rohl (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. The edit you reverted is the edit and revert I made on 2nd August that got me blocked by Doug Weller in the first place. So thank you for offering some sanity here.David Rohl (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see this one will take some work...Simonm223 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block Rohl, what I did was report an IP that I didn't know was Rohl to AIV. And it wasn't the content of the edit that got him blocked when editing as an IP, he was blocked for "3rr and incivility at David Rohl". Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

List of rulers

A while back I have assembled a list of rulers over Egypt from the dates taken from Rohl's various publications. It can be seen here. Could this be used as a subpage to this article? Just asking... CUSH 23:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

David Rohl - geographical theories

Hey all,

I merged David Rohl - geographical theories into this article, as I think there was a consensus that the page wasn't notable enough or necessary (see: Talk:David Rohl - geographical theories).

I do, however, think that the sections "Identifications in the New Chronology" and "Rohl's revised chronology of Pharaohs" are getting entirely too long for this page. I think there need to be some edits for concision.

TuckerResearch (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to remove editorial warnings??

It has been several months now since I edited a part of this article to get the thing into proper shape. In that time I have seen no objections or major clean ups of the section I edited/wrote. As nobody has objected to my contribution, and as no major reworking of the text has taken place, I am making this request for Doug Weller (who I believe put up the warnings in the first place) to now remove those warnings from the head of the article. If anybody has objections to this proposal please give your reasons here. If you agree that the article has not been damaged or unduly biased by my contribution, please also say so here so that the person who did put the two warnings up gets the message. Thank you.David Rohl (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Doug for removing the COI warning. Now can we all please discuss the 'undue weight' issue. Could somebody please articulate where the undue weight occurs. I would say that the article simply states what the NC is, how it works, what it proposes, and how it has been received. In what way does the article lend undue weight to the theory? Please can editors who have been involved in this article give their views and, if the consensus is that the article does explain the NC accurately and in a reasonable fashion, make a decision as to whether the second warning can be removed. It is not my fault that the hypothesis sounds reasonable when explained properly and makes logical sense to the reader. That's why it works as a reasonable hypothesis! David Rohl (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the article is still not comprehensive enough. It focuses very much on the material in A Test of Time, but almost skips all from your other publications, such as Legend, From Eden To Exile, and Lords of Avaris. CUSH 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it you Cush who promised to add material from these volumes? I have waited for months and no substantive additions have been made to this article by anybody. Plenty of editors but no writers. If I did the work I would have a ton of horse shit dropped on my head by way of COI, so somebody else has to do the writing - yet nobody is prepared to do it. Strange.David Rohl (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I have the next 5 weeks off, I may sit down and finally assemble something :-) CUSH 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "undue weight" tag should be removed. First of all, if you read the Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight page, I don't even think the tag fits. If I read WP:Undue correctly, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." That means, don't replace the Ramesses II page with reams of info from Rohl, because Rohl's is (unfortunately) a minority view, but that doesn't mean you can't have an article about Rohl's chronology. But perhaps I'm wrong. Secondly, that said, this article is a fairly concise, reasoned, cool-headed overview of the Test of Time thesis, and is counterbalanced by the "Reception" section quite well. I say remove the warning. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the WP:UNDUE policy applies to *wikipedia*, so having an entire article which gives undue weight to a fringe idea falls foul. Furthermore, having David Rohl write the bulk of the article himself falls foul of WP:OR.--feline1 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. To quote WP:UNDUE: "For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority. In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." I further disagree that "David Rohl wr[o]te the bulk of the article himself." Yes, he made several edits, but he did not write the bulk of the article. I also don't see how it runs "foul of WP:OR." Look at New_Chronology_(Rohl)#References, I think that this is a well-balanced article. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Only two editors have responded to my request to discuss the warning tags issue in the last two weeks. If you are reading this, would you please explain to me what "this article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole" means in the context of an article specifically about a theory? I understand the 'undue weight' issue with respect to giving undue weight to minority ideas in a mainstream article, but how can one give undue weight to a minority view in an article about that minority view? I just cannot see the logic or the point in this tag and I would like it to be removed.David Rohl (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear! I agree. Remove the tag. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I support removing the tag, and I disagree with feline1: if you think the article is inappropriate, you can propose it for deletion. Otherwise, pleaee explain what it is about the article that you consider to be "undue weight". An article on a fringe topic should describe the topic without presenting it as fact; does this article do so? I support removing the tag, since nobody has suggested specific changes that are needed, and since in my opinion the lead of the article makes it very clear that this is not a theory generally accepted by mainstream egyptologists, and I skimmed most of the article and as far as I noticed the theory's status was presented appropriately throughout. The article is OR or not depending on its content, regardless of who wrote that content; it depends on whether secondary sources are cited (which I haven't checked). If you think it's OR you can add an OR tag and explain what parts of the article are OR. By the way, David Rohl should feel free to write content and propose it on this talk page or in a sandbox, to be inserted into the article by other editors if they believe it improves the article. By the way, I find terms such as "down-dating" or "lowering the dates" confusing: I really don't know in which direction the proposed changes are being made, and I would appreciate having this clarified in the article. (Would the terms apply to opposite temporal directions for BC versus AD dates?) How about stating clearly "he proposes that certain events took place more recently than has been conventionally accepted"? (I can't insert this into the article because I'm not sure whether it's correct.) Saying that once would be good, and thereafter short forms such as "down-dating" or "lowering the dates" can be used. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

the problem with this article is not "undue weight", it is {{NPOV}}. The topic predominantly attracts edits by supporters of the theory, worst of all, this particular article has been subjected to very active filibustering by the author himself. I do think that the article does not represent mainstream opinion properly, which is basically that the proposal has no merit. The fact that nobody accepts the proposal is duly noted, far down the article body, under "Reception/Egyptology". As a proposal within Egyptology, the reception within Egyptology is a rather crucial point, wouldn't you say? So it would be rather LEAD-worthy to state that none of Rohl's peers, such as bothered to comment at all, have endorsed it. The lead should state something like "the NC is universally rejected in mainstream Egyptology, but it enjoys some popularity among Evangelicalist biblical literalists". That would put the topic DULY into perspective. Do you think there is any connection between the strange fact that the lead does not state anything of the kind and the activities of User:David Rohl on this talkpage?

Personally, I am convinced that this topic within Wikipedia guidelines would not qualify for more than a h2 section within the David Rohl bio article. But since we already have compiled this dedicated article, it will be easier to keep it around as a standalone WP:FRINGE article than trying to enforce a merger, so I will forgo pushing the merging and simply insist that the NC's failure to convince even one Egyptologist is pointed out duly, in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and the least that could be done to make this article NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go all over again! Dab's opinions, which he has now edited into the article, have no sources and are totally biased in the other direction. His edit implies that only evangelicals and creationists support the New Chronology, whereas there are just as many non religious supporters and many evangelicals who don't support the NC. He also ignores Professor Khurt's statement as to scholar's views of the various revised chronologies which was the original reference in the opening paragraph. Dab is the one with no ability to take a NPOV here, not those who generated the text in this article which was finally starting to be both fair and reasonable. Now we are back to polarisation again.David Rohl (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of us question your ability to comment neutrally on your own theory. Please read WP:COI. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please be specific and indicate where a lack of neutrality is displayed in my contributions to this article. I am perfectly able to write a description of what the New Chronology is about and I have left others to add the criticisms. I have not commented on my theory at all, but merely explained what the theory is. Strange though how properly sourced criticisms of the New Chronology theory by recognised specialists in the field are hard to come by don't you think? Opinion without facts and argument from people who don't know the material is no substitute for well reasoned criticism from scholars who know what they are talking about. So where is it?.David Rohl (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem with having David Rohl explain his own theory. The best thing about that is that he can add references to his sources, so that the contents of his theory is verifiable in accordance with WP requirements. On the other side other editors are supposed to present well-sourced criticism. Only such criticism is admissible that seeks to refute David based on facts, criticism based on an Egyptologist's gut feeling is not a verifiable reference.

I see no COI as long as David stays out of the sections that deal with the reaction to his work. He may of course express concerns about unsourced or unscientific criticism on the Talk page. No problem there either.

Oh, and Dbachmann does not determine what is valid archaeology. CUSH 18:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Never mind, there is a real WP:NPOV problem. Cush, do you really thinks this article expresses all significant viewpoints in proportion to their significance? Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what exactly is the purpose of this article? First of all, the theory should be presented comprehensively. Then there should be the criticism. What viewpoints do you refer to? If there are publications that refute Rohl's conclusions then bring them on. CUSH 02:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My concerns are based out of my rather strict interpretation of WP:COI. I don't have evidence that Rohl has violated WP:NPOV as egyptology is outside my area of specialty and am not qualified to assess this. However I am perfectly able to assess that WP:COI discourages people from writing pages about themselves or their works. The fact that Mr. Rohl is doing this is thus something of a concern for me. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay Doug. Please supply some quotes from bona fide, recognised Egyptologists (other than Kitchen who is already quoted in this article) to support the contention that all or even a majority of Egyptologists unequivocally dismiss the New Chronology or any major revision of the Orthodox Chronology. Let's have the content that you believe is missing from the article. Then let's have the arguments against the New Chronology offered by those same Egyptologists. Can you produce the counter arguments from Egyptological sources? Please put up or shut up. The real irony here is that you can't actually produce the quotes you so desperately seek.David Rohl (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon, it is not a COI to ensure that the facts of a theory are correctly stated. That is just making sure that the theory is properly represented. And that is all I have done. Please read earlier contributions to this talk page.David Rohl (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

{undent}[3] See if I hadn't taken a look at your edit history I might buy that you were just making sure the facts of your theory were correctly stated but, seriously, this volume of edits is indicative of significant editorial participation. That is CoI territory. Simonm223 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then apparently volume of edits indicates COI does it? So please go through those edits and indicate which demonstrate a conflict of interest. Have you not considered that the article was so bad and so inaccurate that it needed a lot of work? Perhaps you could do better? Maybe you have read the published material on the NC theory and can write a better article? You first criticised me for not demonstrating a NPOV. When you were pulled up about that, you moved the goal posts and chose COI as your weapon. That issue has been discussed ad nauseam on this talk page and you need to read the past history on that issue to see what others think. Now you claim that COI is demonstrated by the volume of edits. Where is that stated in WP.COI? I think you need to give some examples of what your concerns are rather than inventing new WP dogma.David Rohl (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I've been criticizing you all along for CoI violations as demonstrated by the fact that your editorial participation is much greater than simple fact-checking. The CoI makes me suspect your PoV. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then don't exercise yourself in actually coming up with specifics. So the new WP rule is that 'volume of edits' and 'participation greater than simple fact-checking' constitutes COI. Can somebody please enshrine that in the COI page so that we can all abide by this new piece of wisdom. It is very sad that an article which has hugely benefitted from the efforts of this contributor is plagued by petty grievances from people who have no knowledge or interest in the subject and whose main purpose here is to apply Draconian principles to guidelines put in place to ensure that the high quality of articles is maintained. Why are there people involved in WP that just can't produce the evidence for their criticisms to prove their case. Opinion without facts is worthless and is nothing more than mindless dogma. What a poor do.David Rohl (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cite one academic Egyptologist who does support Rohl's work

Dbachmann is unwilling to countenance the phrase 'The New Chronology has not been accepted by most Egyptologists'. In his recent [dubious - discuss] note he questions the term 'most' and argues that it should be changed to 'all Egyptologists'. He challenges pro-NC editors of this article to 'cite one academic Egyptologist who does' support or is sympathetic to Rohl's work. Well, okay, here are four Egyptologists and a whole raft of other senior academics who do not regard the New Chronology thesis as '100% nonsense' as per Kitchen. The NC debate does not only concern Egyptology but other disciplines as well, so I believe I am entitled to include the views of other scholars and academics who have expressed a view on the matter. Once Dbachmann and other anti-NC WP editors have studied these quotes, I believe that I am equally entitled to challenge those WP critics to produce similar quotes by NC critics from within academia (apart from Kitchen whose own chronology is directly challenged by the NC). That would surely only be fair. I have answered Dab's challenge and he now needs to do the same. If he can't do so, then he should withdraw his negative input and leave the editing of this article to those with less closed minds. Would a neutral editor also please delete Dbachmann's erroneous edit and restore the original text agreed by a consensus of other editors after weeks of discussion. Here are the quotes in support of my research and my legitimate right to question orthodoxy:

‘Just recently, one of Rohl’s peers, an American Egyptologist, cold-canvassed a number of other Egyptologists with a single question: If you were to place the Israelite Sojourn and Exodus in any period in history, what would it be? The majority picked the Middle Bronze Age, concurring with Rohl.’ [Sunday Times, 13th October 2002]

Professor Robert Bianchi BA, MA, PhD (Egyptologist and art historian)

‘I fully realise that this redating proposed by David Rohl in A Test of Time is provocative and may be dismissed out of hand by many traditionalists. I myself, as the television production’s ‘counterfoil’ to the New Chronology theory, have raised a number of methodological objections – the type of objections which might be levelled by other scholars who would question the validity of some of David’s conclusions. Yet the economy of his hypothesis, the support he gains from those well versed in the texts, and the aggressive suggestions to redate the United Monarchy period of Israel’s history into the Late Bronze Age do make good sense. … David’s New Chronology theory has evolved out of his Egyptological research. This has suggested to him that the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period, usually dated between 1069 and 664 BC, is shorter in time than the traditional historical framework would allow. Much of his evidence is compelling. The architecture of the royal tombs at Tanis, for example, appears to demand that the 21st and 22nd Dynasties were contemporary rather than sequential. This single observation speaks volumes for compressing the time span of the Third Intermediate Period – a chronological compression which I support … Provocative? Yes. But then David himself would be the first to admit that his proposals will turn on their heads the academic disciplines of Egyptology, Near Eastern archaeology and biblical research, as well as many other related fields of study. He has not simply deconstructed Egyptian chronology and left the pieces for others to put back together, as is the current fashion in scholarship. He has been courageous enough to set up a new, revolutionary historical model for critical examination by his colleagues. I trust that they will be prepared to take up his challenge in the true spirit of vigorous and open-minded debate.’

Dr Robert Morkot BA, PhD (Egyptologist, Nubiologist, Wainwright Research Fellow in Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of Oxford)

‘With the demise of Sothic dating and the apparent untenability of the equation of Shoshenq I with the biblical Shishak, the entire basis for the conventional length for the Third Intermediate Period collapses. A throng of evidence from almost every area of the Mediterranean, and from Nubia on the very doorstep of Egypt, calls for a lowering of the Egyptian dates and a radical shortening of the TIP. … Sadly, the study of Egyptian chronology seems to have become so ossified that it cannot question its fundamental assumptions, accepted more for familiarity than for any basis in fact.’

Dr Penelope Wilson BA, MA, PhD (Lecturer in Egyptology, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham)

‘I am fully aware of the ‘controversy’ surrounding Rohl’s views, but I regard his work as a valuable contribution to our subject. His research has highlighted problem areas in a number of historical fields and he has quite legitimately questioned the way we use various sets of data and information to construct the past. This is of considerable value, not least because it has prompted a re-examination of the key chronological synchronisms in ancient world archaeology. It has also made accessible some very difficult areas of Egyptology to students, interested non-academics and, yes, even other Egyptologists.’

Robert Partridge (Egyptologist, Editor of Ancient Egypt Magazine, Chairman of the Manchester Ancient Egypt Society and council member of the Egypt Exploration Society)

‘For many years David Rohl has been a regular and popular guest lecturer in Manchester for the Manchester Ancient Egypt Society (which is the largest and oldest of many provincial Egyptology Societies in the United Kingdom). He is well known for his series of books and television programmes on different aspects of Egyptology and Near Eastern ancient history and always attracts our biggest audiences. Whilst his ideas and interpretation of the archaeological evidence are not always accepted by some academics, his arguments are persuasive and logical (unlike many theories which feature in books and television documentaries). David has done more than many authors and television presenters to encourage those interested in ancient Egypt to think hard about the evidence before coming to their own conclusions. He has also been instrumental in bringing together a team of internationally-known Egyptologists for a major annual conference in the UK where the aim of a full exchange of ideas and information has greatly benefited the study of Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament.’

Professor Trevor Palmer BA, PhD, FIBiol, CIBiol, FIBMS, ILTM (Pro Vice-Chancellor and Senior Dean at Nottingham Trent University)

‘I first met David Rohl around twenty years ago, and since then have followed, with great interest, the development of his theories concerning the chronology of the ancient world. I have attended several of his lectures and even travelled with him all over the Middle East, and can say, without equivocation, that he has few peers in blending words and pictures to present a clear and thought-provoking argument.’

Dr Peter Williams BA, MA, PhD (Warden of Tyndale House, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge)

‘David Rohl’s New Chronology theories concerning Egyptian and biblical history have made a positive contribution, not only in the popular sphere but also within academia. This is because his research has uncovered real issues in ancient history … and has also led specialists to examine the foundations of their discipline more thoroughly. It is now widely held that the current consensus chronologies for the second millennium BC are still highly problematic. Many believe that the chronologies are, or may be, much more flexible than a few specialists have been prepared to admit. David Rohl’s contribution to the study of Old World archaeology has introduced a breath of fresh air to the intellectually stagnant areas of biblical and Egyptian historical reconstruction. The academic disciplines will almost certainly have more and better students as a result of Rohl’s publications and lectures than they would have without them.’

Professor Thomas Schirrmacher BA, PhD, PhD, PhD (leading theologian and Principal of the Martin Bucer Theological Seminary in Bonn)

‘David Rohl questions the traditional reconstruction of the chronology of the entire ancient Near East, to which minimalist theologians gladly adhere. The latter use it in order to prove that the Pentateuchal narratives – which do not seem to fit with Syro-Palestinian archaeology – are simply myth. Briefly, Rohl argues that the time period allowed for Egyptian history is too long and that some Egyptian dynasties did not reign after one another, but rather at the same time. As a consequence, the so-called Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, has to be drastically shortened. The dramatic by-product of his Egyptological research is that the shorter Egyptian chronology allows for a far better match with Israelite/Old Testament history. Suddenly one is able to determine, who the Pharaoh of the Exodus was, or where the palace of the vizier Joseph once stood. Rohl’s New Chronology synchronisms between the Old Testament and ancient Egyptian sources are so overwhelming that any endeavor to defend the historicity of the Old Testament by biblical scholars whilst retaining the orthodox chronology appears to pale into insignificance. Naturally this does not necessarily prove Rohl’s theories to be correct. Nonetheless, there are good reasons to take them seriously and study his evidence in detail. I am looking forward to following the ongoing debate.’

Professor Colin Humphreys CBE, FREng, DSc (Commander – Order of the British Empire, Fellow of the British Academy, world renowned scholar and Goldsmiths’ Professor of Materials Science & Metallurgy, University of Cambridge)

‘I support the conventional Egyptian chronology (more or less). However, I do believe that Rohl argues his case for a revised chronology persuasively and puts forward a detailed hypothesis which conventional chronologists need to answer.’

Peter Parr (Head of Levantine Archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology, London)

‘I have known David Rohl for at least twenty years, as an undergraduate and research student at University College London; as a member of my excavation team at Tell Nebi Mend (ancient Qadesh-on-the-Orontes) in Syria; as a colleague and travelling companion; and as a personal friend. He was outstanding as a student, with an exceptionally profound knowledge of the archaeology of Egypt, the Near East, and the Mediterranean region. Most impressive was his ability to keep up-to-date with current research, and to assimilate new discoveries and ideas into his own work. He already had a highly developed critical faculty and never hesitated to challenge the currently accepted wisdom, ever seeking new answers to old questions, as well as formulating new questions which he believed archaeology should address.’

Professor Daniel Warner BA, MA, PhD (President of The Virtual Bible)

‘The issue of the veracity of Bible history is still not settled in scholarly circles and David Rohl has provided excellent arguments to resolve many of the contentious issues, taking the subject of biblical archaeology in a new and fascinating direction which is more progressive than anything offered by any other scholar in the field.’

Professor Graham Clark AO, FAA, FTSE, PhD, (Hon) MD, (Hon) DSc (senior academic at Melbourne University and Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine)

‘I have been most impressed by the way that David Rohl has analysed Egyptian chronology and its relation to the history of the Israelites. Archaeology is a difficult science in which experimental validation is not easy. It requires a broad understanding of a variety of source materials. David Rohl has had the skill to logically interrelate different pieces of information and has produced a convincing hypothesis worthy of debate. If further validated, it will make a far-reaching contribution to the field. After reading his book, A Test of Time, listening to his lectures and discussing contentious issues with David, I am impressed by his careful and knowledgeable approach. Those counter arguments which have been put forward concerning the detail of his work have been answered and do not undermine his main thesis.’

Dr Uwe Zerbst BA, MSc, PhD (co-editor of Biblische Archäologie am Scheideweg? (Hänssler Verlag, 2002) and specialist in scientific dating methods)

‘I co-edited a voluminous German book discussing David Rohl’s revised chronology. We decided to debate this subject in an open-minded and balanced manner by inviting both proponents and critics to contribute to the volume. David’s model does offer surprising solutions where the archaeological facts and historical interpretations are found to be in disagreement within the conventional scheme. David Rohl’s inspired attempt to reconstruct the archaeo-chronology of the ancient world may prove to be the decisive historical milestone we have all been searching for.’

Professor Lolke van der Veen BA, MA, PhD (Professor of Linguistics, University of Lyon)

‘Does ancient chronology need major (or minor) revision? For some historians merely asking this question is sacrilege: the timetable of Egyptian history has been established and no one can be permitted to question it. Theory has sadly become dogma. However, as any experienced and self-respecting scholar knows, ongoing questioning and open debate are fundamental features – if not pillars – of scientific research. At present, major uncertainties exist in the field of Egyptology – as David Rohl (supported by several prominent researchers) has ably demonstrated. Although Rohl’s arguments are not all equally convincing (and aspects of his thesis might be criticised from a methodological standpoint), his research has raised serious doubts concerning the tenability of the established chronological scheme. Moreover, several of his proposals are certainly of considerable interest to biblical historians and should, therefore, be seriously investigated. Simply casting aside his ideas, without properly exploring and testing them, would be tantamount to rejection for fear of the unknown. This way of doing things can hardly be characterised as scientific or worthy of academia.’

Dr David Lappin BSc, PhD (astronomer, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Glasgow)

‘After reading David Rohl’s first book, A Test of Time, which argued for a radical reassessment of Egyptian chronology, I was interested to test his hypothesis using astronomical retro-calculation. At the time I did not know David and my interest was purely out of academic curiosity. I had no bias in the outcome. A set of 39 lunar dates have been identified on papyri which were found in an Egyptian 12th Dynasty temple complex. However, the Orthodox Chronology dates for the 12th Dynasty have proved to be in poor agreement with the retro-calculated dates based on the data provided in the papyri documents. My analysis (including a statistical assessment) of over 9000 lunar months, using four independent astronomy computer programs and manual calculations of the new moon, has shown that the dates for the Middle Kingdom must be lowered by 140 years – in close agreement with Rohl’s New Chronology dates for the 12th Dynasty. I also found that other astronomical evidence, consisting of Egyptian dates of the heliacal rising of the star Sirius, lunar dates and solar eclipses, are supportive of the New Chronology. The agreement between the dates derived from astronomy and the dates calculated by Rohl (based on the archaeological evidence) is quite remarkable – given the different approaches used. As a result, I am convinced that David Rohl’s research is of fundamental importance to the study of ancient history and archaeology.’

Dr John Milsom BA, MA, PhD (Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth Sciences, University College, London)

‘One of the greatest obstacles to the acceptance of David Rohl’s arguments by the academic community lies in the shattering effect it would have on the whole of the accepted reconstruction of the ancient world. Understandably, for many academics the idea that vast libraries of scholarly works (and their own life’s work) could be rendered obsolete almost overnight is too much to contemplate. However, I myself lived through, and to a minor extent participated in, just such a revolution forty years ago, in the introduction of plate tectonics in the Earth Sciences. In describing those times to my students, my greatest difficulty is in explaining why it was that, in the face of almost overwhelming evidence, this revolution took so long. I am fascinated by the thought that the same sort of thing might happen again, in another branch of science. At the very least, Rohl’s work and arguments deserve to be heard. In twenty years time, they could be orthodoxy.’

Sir Alan Gardiner (grandee of Egyptology and senior academic)

‘What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters.’ —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rohl (talk • contribs) 20:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ai yai yai. I was the person who originally chose the words "not accepted by most Egyptologists". I could not write that "none accept it" because it would require proving a negative; I would need to do something similar to polling all Egyptologists on this point which would (1) require determining which Egyptologists should be included & (2) be original research. Asking David Rohl to prove that one other Egyptologist is not assuming good faith, in my humble opinion.

And the reason that I haven't worked on fixing the undue weight in this article is that I have other priorities, & had thought other people would address this need. Unfortunately, devoting my time to Ethiopian topics (which includes working my way thru a difficult primary source in an indifferent translation) takes up what time I have to devote to Wikipedia -- as well as deal with a far more clear case of someone pushing a fringe theory. Let's try to play nice here. -- llywrch (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying "not accepted by most" implies that there is a minority which does accept it which means you need to "prove a positive" instead. If after all this time and the help from DR himself we cannot name a single Egyptologist who endorses this theory, it is pretty safe to say thatt there are none. We don't need to prove a negative as long as we do not emphasize that not a single Egyptologists accepts it, we can just say "rejected by mainstream Egyptology" and be done. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that there is not simply "the conventional chronology" and "Rohl's theory of a radical revision". There are number of criticisms of parts of the conventional chronology, and they can be put together in different ways - see notably the Peter James Centuries of Darkness guys such as Robert Morkot - unpicking the agreements/disagreements with Rohl is a pile of work, especially as it was a number of people who don't seem to be collaborating any more. Then you have the Egyptologists like Bianchi (quoted above) who, despite being the counterfoil to Rohl in the Test of Time TV series, says the compression of the TIP as per Rohl is "a chronological compression which I support". It would be misleading to simply say that Rohl's work has been rejected by mainstream Egyptology and that's an end of it (even if you ignore the German book I haven't got round to reading). The various challenges to the conventional chronology remain, and aren't going to go away: but no single alternative construction has (yet) gained strong support in academia either, even as the validity of some of the challenges and/or the weakness in parts of the conventional chronology are acknowledged. Possibly the conventional chronology will be continue to be revised so gently and piecemeal over longer periods that one day someone will say, "hey, that now looks a bit like what those guys were talking about all those years ago"! All of which strengthens my view that what's really needed is a lot more work on the construction of the conventional chronology, because then various criticisms of that particular construction have a clear peg to hang their hats on. (Maybe that could be a project for Rohl: a historiography of the conventional Egyptian chronology, coauthored with someone who disagrees with his views on how it's wrong.) Rd232 ^talk 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My intent in originally adding the words "not accepted by most Egyptologists" was as a warning to readers otherwise not familiar with ancient Egyptian history that this was not the conventional view. With that caveat, students shouldn't simply repeat his theories in their school papers & not expect their instructors to raise some serious questions -- or slap a failing grade on their paper. On the other hand, I was also trying for some nuance here: while Rohl's theories are obviously not part of the mainstream thought (much in the way Rd232 has explained in detail above), they aren't lunatic fringe either. (Although from my experience, & based on my private correspondence with Rohl, some of his supporters are of that ilk. I suspect it comes with the territory.) True lunatic fringe theories, IMHO, are in the realm of Graham Hancock, who argued that the monolithic churches of Lalibela were the work of a group of Knights Templar. Rohl is taken far more seriously by academic Egyptologists than Hancock's research on Lalibela was: Rohl was able to recruit Manfred Bietak to present his discoveries at Avaris at one of a series of talks Rohl was managing, whereas I doubt any scholar of Ethiopian history would bother to even return a phone call from Hancock. While I don't agree with Rohl about his conclusions, there are two important points that need to be made about them: (1) if they are accepted & become part of the conventional chronology, it doesn't radically change the greater outline of ancient Egyptian chronology; (2) his work points out that a detailed review & reconsideration of the evidence, reasoning & conclusions of the accepted chronology is past due. On the second point: it wasn't until I started looking hard at the literature to refute Rohl that I discovered just how little there is on ancient Egyptian chronology, even at local university libraries here in Portland, & much of what's available is outdated. That is why what I wrote for conventional Egyptian chronology is little more than a sketchy outline, & probably why it remains much how I left it: the material is simply not easily accessible. And if the only result of Rohl's publications is to force someone to write a monograph on the determination of ancient Egyptian chronology, then I believe his work worth discussing. -- llywrch (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On this point of wording, which seems to be so important to Dbachmann, why don't you simply say "Egyptologists continue to use the standard chronology in mainstream publications, though the New Chronology of Rohl has considerable popular support outside academia'? Isn't that true?David Rohl (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed that for you. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What pathetic silly nonsense Simon. Grow up!David Rohl (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful in how you address others here David; see WP:CIV. I sympathise with your frustration but Wikipedia is designed to be a slow process when necessary. Simon's edit was inappropriate but there are correct means to challenge every such behaviour which do not include name-calling and loss of civility. Please be patient. Nigedo (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, now. Snark aside, he has a point; the second half of your sentence does have those issues. Referring to something like "has been widely disseminated through best-selling books and TV series aimed at the general public" is supportable. Beyond that, to avoid going into original research by synthesis territory, we need to be able to cite someone who's commented specifically on this issue. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one here who can see obvious bias in such edits? What is different about the sentence 'The New Chronology has not been accepted by most Egyptologists.'? Does this have a source? Does it have a reference to a poll? Has a census been taken? Is it supportable from within academic publications or writings? Or is it just an opinion that cannot, by its very nature, be verified? You yourself Rd232 have said as much. I could just as easily insert after 'most Egyptologists' (where is the data to support this?). And what does 'not been accepted' mean? In its entirety or in part? Is this not ? The Rohl thesis is wide-ranging and has many elements to it. Some Egyptologists agree with some elements. Very few Egyptologists dismiss all of the material (even Kitchen). Many Egyptologists and academics are not happy with Kitchen's chronology (viz. Bianchi, Morkot, Kuhrt, Bimson, etc). Some archaeologists, putting the chronology aside, agree about the archaeological evidence in the MBA for the Sojourn and Conquest (viz. Hoffmeir, Lloyd, Bimson, Schirrmacher, Warner, etc). To generalise with 'The New Chronology has not been accepted by most Egyptologists.' is and unsupported by reliable sources. This sentence has 'issues' (as you put it). Why then is that acceptable but 'considerable popular support' is not (bearing in mind the quotes above from both academics and event organisers)? The very fact that the book A Test of Time was no. 2 in the bestseller lists for weeks on end and the fact that I continue to lecture to record audience numbers within the UK Egyptological society circuit (I just lectured to several thousand people on a UK tour, averaging 400 per audience) demonstrates the 'considerable popularity' of my work.

What I am complaining about with Simon223 is that he is selective in what he edits. He does not exhibit a NPOV and his edits are not neutral. The same standards have to apply to both sides of the argument. So please treat the anti-NC statements here with the same rigour. Or simply apply the same leeway to both. You question that the NC has 'considerable popular support' but you don't question that 'the NC has not been accepted by most Egyptologists'. Why the double standard? I could give you more evidence to support the former statement. Can you or the other NC critics here provide evidence in support of the latter?David Rohl (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a talk page. I was critiquing your suggestion. I did so in a bit of a pointed manner. However you are particularly involved and particularly defensive of your own work so I thought making the critique pointed might be necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:TPO and WP:CIV. It was quite predictable that your edit of David's own comments would cause antagonism. Please avoid this in future. Nigedo (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)