Talk:Patterns of Evidence

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

NPOV

All the sources are conservative/Christian sources. Several of them seem to fail WP:RSN. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that several seem to fail RS. I'm not concerned if they are conservative or Christian. This isn't the sort of film that will get a broad spectrum of coverage. Isn't reliability the main concern? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Errors

There is no "panel of non-experts" at any point. All the experts from the earlier parts of the film are brought back during the last half hour. There is no segmentation dividing this part of the film; "half-hour" is arbitrary, however no new experts (or otherwise) are brought in during roughly the last 30 minutes. Additionally, the Pharaoh cited in the article is wrong, as he is an 18th dynasty Pharaoh, (perhaps Amenemhat II is meant?) whereas the film postulates (by name) a late 16th dynasty Pharaoh, Dedumose I, but otherwise only links the collapse of the middle kingdom to the Exodus events and Hyksos invasion, making 12th-16th dynasties within the possible range. 46.19.139.126 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a panel, including Eric Metaxas, Anne Graham Lotz and Dennis Prager. The first source (which won't pass RS) talks about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it temporarily until we can find a decent source. Haven't changed the Pharaoh and won't without a source. Doug Weller (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Anne Lotz website is a reasonably reliable source for what she is going [1]. Christian Post is a RS, but does call them experts [2]. A local radio station [3]. TBN is a RS for it's programming [4]. I think we can return it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok so long as we don't call them experts. Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the film is putting forward a new chronology, and using that to propose a dating of the Exodus, why would you then use the traditional Egyptian chronology when referring to the Pharaoh? Surely it is better to be consistent and make clear that the film is proposing a particular date and a particular pharaoh, rather than half of one and half of the other? 212.3.192.124 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

This shouldn't be removed:

{{quote|Mahoney’s method of film-making is pretty straight forward. Gather together an ensemble cast of legitimate scholars, then lionize some fringe loon on the outskirts of the academic radar.<ref name="Falk 2019">{{cite web | last=Falk | first=David A. | title=The Moses Controversy: More So-called Patterns of "Evidence" | website=Egypt and the Bible | date=15 January 2019 | url=http://www.egyptandthebible.com/index.php/2019/01/15/moses-controversy-so-called-patterns-of-evidence/ | access-date=28 October 2020}}</ref>|David A. Falk|The Moses Controversy: More So-called Patterns of “Evidence”}}

Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't; but regardless its placement is misleading. The way the article is written, it sounds like Falk said this because it disagrees with the documentary/supplementary hypothesis; but Falk disagrees with these views himself and holds to an early authorship of the Pentateuch. He was attacking the film because of its handling of some early Canaanite inscriptions and because it dates the Exodus in the 15th century BC rather than the 13th century BC.

Deletion II

I've proposed deletion, apparently again. Temerarius (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Temerarius: I've removed the prod. "Unremarkable and fringe" are both true but not deletion criteria - Wikipedia can and does cover fringe figures. (See Category:Astrologers for one obvious example.)

I presume what you really meant was something like "not notable", but in practice, the notability standards for films are pretty generous. Just a few reviews are usually enough to satisfy WP:GNG. [5] is a short hostile blurb (but from an actual Egyptologist), [6] is an interview with Christian media, [7] is a conservative Christian pastor's take (but this is, like, the target audience of the film, so relevant). You're free to nominate it for AFD but I highly doubt that such a nomination would succeed. SnowFire (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stand aside and let people discuss it for a moment. It's been three years since the last deletion attempt. Temerarius (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A) What are you talking about? There wasn't an earlier deletion attempt that I see. B) I was discussing it above? I don't get what you're looking for - in a discussion, not everyone will always agree with you. C) The prod process is only for uncontested, uncontroversial deletions. Please read WP:PROD. Editors in good standing can remove these tags and that isn't unexpected or a problem - you can't just ask that they "stand aside." If someone contests a prod, the next steps are to proceed to a full AFD if you still think it should be deleted, not to ask the prod-remover not to exercise their role of pointing out that this deletion would be controversial. SnowFire (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]