Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mentioning popular media in lead, or only mentioning creationists and Bible?

I made this edit as a suggestion, and have self-reverted it for now since I don't know the whole history of this discussion, but invite others to revert it back in, or a variation. I prefer the "has been disseminated in popular media" from an earlier version of the lead (although I've positioned it differently) rather than implying it's supported only by creationists and Bible literalists, which gives an inaccurate impression, I think. Perhaps someone could come up with a version that mentions both. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That bit about the literalists was vague and unsourced anyway, at present. I've moulded something from summarising the body, as per WP:LEAD. [2] Rd232 ^talk 06:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Sanity and reasonableness regains a foothold here again. I appreciate your intervention.David Rohl (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

by "sanity and reasonableness" you of course mean "my homies", while, by extension "insanity and irrationality" is the hallmark of your critics, it would appear. Btw, I did not ask you to cite "four Egyptologists and a whole raft of other senior academics who do not regard the New Chronology thesis as '100% nonsense' as per Kitchen", I asked you to cite one single endorsement. "Not 100% nonsense" is not an endorsement. I am aware a reviewer has chosen the words "magnificently wrong" rather than "100% nonsense". "Magnificently wrong" is not an endorsement. If you ask me, the more involvement from DR this page gets, the more "reasonableness" goes out the window. I do miss a more strict enforcement of WP:COI on this page, as the article is clearly going nowhere as long as DR is here to "protect" it. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I find your tone and the content of your comments above to be unacceptable. Clearly there are disagreements that have been continuing for some time over this article but that does not excuse your clear sarcasm and disdain when you say "by "sanity and reasonableness" you of course mean "my homies", while, by extension "insanity and irrationality" is the hallmark of your critics" or "the more involvement from DR this page gets, the more "reasonableness" goes out the window". These comments are entirely inappropriate and David himself has been censured for similar antagonism in the recent past. I suggest you go and participate in another area of Wikipedia for a while until you regain some balance and clarity of your responsibility to approach editorship with neutrality. Nigedo (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to a note by Coppertwig I should point out that I intended no offence by my suggestion above. I merely observe that when one has become so embroiled in a personal interpretation of a subject so as to become antagonistic in talk discussions, it is better to withdraw for the sake of good editorship. My apologies for any offence and please take my suggestion in the sense it is intended. Nigedo (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that we have seen nobody in Egyptology express support for the key parts of Rohl's views. "Deserves to be heard", "not nonsense", and "should not be dismissed out of hand" are comments a million miles away from active support of the thesis. That the conventional chronology of this period has its problems is of course undisputed. That Rohl's replacement is not the solution is also fairly clear (or at least, that this is the view of the relevant academics). There is no compatibility issue with those two statements. Moreschi (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for the edit, Rd232. I've inserted "generally" to make "has not been generally accepted in academia", since the quotes David Rohl gives above show some professors commenting positively about the theory. I also suggested another alternative wording in this edit; however, I gather both versions are rejected by Dbachman, who says [3] "since when is the Sunday Times our go-to source for estimating academic consensus?" I'm wondering what exactly is meant by "has not been accepted in academia": perhaps this could be replaced with another phrase such as "has not been accepted by academic consensus". I think "has not been accepted in academia" is ambiguous: it could mean there has been no widespread acceptance, (e.g. no acceptance by a majority of any major group of academics) or it could mean no academics at all have accepted it. The latter is contradicted by the quotes above and therefore doesn't seem NPOV to me. Dbachmann, can you provide a source that convincingly verifies the statement you reverted to? I don't see a problem with using the Sunday Times as a source, but if someone can provide a better source, all the better. Inserting the word "generally" wasn't intended by me to make a statement about academic consensus, but only to leave open the possibility that some individuals might support the theory; maybe there's a better wording to express that thought. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What individuals support the theory? Reread the quotes provided. I just did. You will not find one active expression of support for Rohl's position: sympathy, yes, particularly among the non-Egyptologists, expressions of discontent with various aspects of conventional chronology, obviously. Endorsement of Rohl's chronology? No. The closest you get is Robert Morkot's comment, and even that does not actually support Rohl's views. Moreschi (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Coppertwig, it has long been established that

• Rohl's theory is not accepted in Egyptology
• some of its aspects are nevertheless noted positively by reviewers
• unrelated to academic debate, the book has been a popular bestseller, and
• the thesis was picked up by some creationists

As Moreschi states, comments like "deserves to be heard" do not alter the fact that nobody actually endorses the thesis.

If it wasn't for DR's constant filibusternig, it would end there, and we would have a stable and balanced article. I do not "hate" this theory, I find it interesting, but interesting as a suggestion from the academic fringe, stimulating even if nowhere near convincing. What I will not stand for is DR's constant attempts to bend Wikipedia towards his own private vested interests. If this article is a trouble-spot it is exclusively because of this and not because there is anything wrong with reporting on Rohl's NC. And no, calling mainstream scholarship "traditionalism" as you tried to do will not fly, this is classic fringe apologetics (see crackpot index, item 18) --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks for your comment, Moreschi. That's worth thinking about. However, in the quotes above I see (attributed to "Egyptologist[s]") "do make good sense", "Much of his evidence is compelling", "a chronological compression which I support", "the entire basis for the conventional length for the Third Intermediate Period collapses. A throng of evidence ... calls for a lowering of the Egyptian dates and a radical shortening of the TIP." "not always accepted by some academics", "persuasive and logical", etc., which seem to me to contradict the statement "has not been accepted in academia". How about changing it to "contradicts academic consensus"?

And thanks for your reply, Dbachmann. You make a good point about "traditionalists"; I now oppose that wording which I had suggested. I haven't followed this whole debate, so please provide the source for the statement that "Rohl's theory is not accepted in Egyptology"; also, what exactly does that mean? Is it a claim that no Egyptologists accept it? That doesn't seem consistent with the quotes above. Perhaps a more accurate statement might be "No Egyptologist has accepted Rohl's entire theory", but that's probably not verifiable. When I see quotes from the source the statement is based on, I'll be in a better position to suggest wording in a search for wording we can all accept.

Moreschi, you've deleted the "fact" tag, but I don't see where you've provided a source to support the statement? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Or how about "has not been accepted in academic publications"? That wouldn't seem to me to contradict the existence of quotes by professors in the Sunday Times. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

right. you need to understand that this article is being edited by people with an agenda. The soundbites you feed back at us are taken out of context. They are from reviews by scholars who admit (as does everybody else here) that Rohl's theory is erudite (unlike the sort of nonsense from people like Heribert Illig or even Velikovsky) but that he is still wrong. The statement "has not been accepted in academia" refers to Rohl's NC. Your soundbites of the type "Much of his evidence is compelling" are the polite bits right before the big but. I am willing to recognize that parts of Rohl's theory are recognized as smart, or Egyptologically informed. That doesn't alter the fact that nobody is willing to follow the conclusions he draws from his smart arguments. Rohl himself has created a huge dust screen to obscure this simple and rather crucial point. My position is that he has no business to obscure anything around here, least of all Wikipedia's coverage of his own work. --dab (𒁳) 21:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know there are people with agendas. I still don't see a reference supporting the statement "has not been accepted in academia". I think your reminder that the lead is supposed to summarize the body is a good one. The body of the article has a section on reception of the theory which states "has not been accepted by most Egyptologists" but doesn't state anything that in my opinion is equivalent to "has not been accepted by academia". I withdraw my suggested wording "has not been accepted in academic publications", since that section of the article seems to indicate (if I understand it right) that there has been "discussion" (perhaps presenting opinions on both sides?) in a scientific journal although not an Egyptology one. However, I still suggest the wording "contradicts academic consensus". I support Rd232's re-adding of the Kuhrt quote here and agree that it appears to be a good summary. It's my understanding that footnotes are not always required in the lead, (although all the material must be verifiable and the references to support statements in the lead should appear in the body), so I think Dbachmann's rationale for removing fact tags here may be reasonable, although I haven't checked whether those parts of the lead are justifiable by references in the body. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The unsourced/vague Biblical literalist sentences from the lead came with minor adaptation from the body, where they are equally vague and unsourced. I may have missed sourcing elsewhere in the article(?), but for now, tthe tags seem to belong in both lead and body. Hopefully this can be swiftly fixed so the tags can be removed. Rd232 ^talk 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do wish we could get a way from the constant moaning about COI and insinuations of bad faith. Rohl has a COI - so we don't let him edit the article by his lonesome (and he mostly only comments on the talk page anyway). We all have points of view - but the way the discussion goes on this page creates an impression that the those views are for more definite and entrenched than I think they really are. There's a polarisation process which is quite unnecessary. It's not we're like talking about homeopathy or scientology or something - it's just a theory about ancient history; religious motivation aside (and for both Rohl and myself, it's irrelevant), that rather limits the fanaticism. Rd232 ^talk 05:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if there weren't citations for the material in the body of the article either, then fact tags in the lead are appropriate in my opinion; however, I think it might be possible to use a smaller number of tags to label the same amount of text. If no references are found within a reasonable amount of time the material should be deleted per WP:V. I tried via a Google Scholar search but didn't find any useful references. I've changed "has not been accepted in academia" to "has not been adopted by Egyptologists"; I think this expresses better what is said in the Egyptology part of the reception section. Another alternative wording is "contradicts academic consensus", as I suggested above and to which no one has expressed opposition. Also, "has not been accepted by academia" would be preferable to "has not been accepted in academia" though I haven't quite decided whether I think it's good enough.

I agree that we need to work together in a collaborative spirit and to try to avoid polarization of the debate; thanks for your reminder about that, rd232. When an article already has balancing elements on both sides of a debate and needs relatively small changes to make it quite neutral in the opinion of one editor or another, then slight differences of opinion as to what the final article should look like can appear to be attempts to push the article all the way to one end or another of an extreme POV spectrum. AGF is needed; and it also helps if each editor does some edits in both directions POV-wise. We all have the goal of producing a NPOV article; it's fine to disagree on the details of how to do that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand this. Archaeology is a science like all others, which means that when someone comes up with a theory then it has to be refuted by evidence. It is of no relevance whether Egyptologists do not accept or adopt anything as long as they cannot precisely pinpoint the flaws. How they would "feel" towards the NC is highly nonacademic. What we need is publications from people who do not just reject the NC because it goes against the established chronology, but who actually prove it wrong and who can show that their chronology is not flawed as well. CUSH 23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, CUSH. While your sentiments are laudable as ideals for scientific discourse to strive towards, I'm not sure exactly how they relate to the content of this article. (LOL.) I'm not sure what "this" is that you don't understand, nor where you're quoting the word "feel" from. We have to express the opinions presented in reliable published sources, per WP:V and WP:NPOV, regardless of our own feelings about whether those published opinions are based on evidence or are mere personal opinions of experts. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All the article says is that the New Chronology is not accepted by academia, but there is no mention of why or what constitutes the rejection particularly. Wikipedia is supposed to present the theory and its refutation. Sources that only dwell on some experts' gut feelings are not verifiable. Verifiability means that someone could verify or falsify the contents of the theory based on evidence by using the material referenced in secondary sources. In archaeology verifiability means that in theory someone could pick up a shovel and dig up the evidence for themselves after someone described the evidence in a publication. Verifiability does not stop at the publication. Or what? CUSH 02:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the crux of it Coppertwig. Where are the "reliable published sources" for the statements "contradicts academic consensus" or "has not been accepted in academia" or the current "has not been accepted in academic Egyptology". That is all I am asking for - reliable (i.e. authoritative) published sources from within academia or Egyptology. If they cannot be produced then, by WP guidelines, the sentence must be removed. Which is why I am offering the following replacement: "Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology, continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic and popular publications.”David Rohl (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with David's statement above. It really doesn't matter how abrasive you may find his personal manner, he is a serious academic and respect must be shown when you are discussing (rebutting) his work. The same rigour must be applied from both sides of the argument. I believe it would simply be best to omit all statements of a general nature from this article and stick exclusively to verifiable statements, preferably direct quotations from verifiable sources. Otherwise, keep all of your own opinions on the subject and judgements about David to yourself as they do you and Wikipedia no service. (Please note my remarks are not addressed to any single individual but I am exhausted by the undercurrents of petty resentment on here by editors who are nothing more than amateurs in this field). Nigedo (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Cush, I think you're confusing verifiability of statements in this article with verifiability of the theory. Those are two different things. I agree that it's preferable to include material that discusses reasons why experts agree or disagree with the theory, rather than just stating their gut feelings; but until we find sources for the former we'll have to make do with the latter. If the article states that a certain expert has made a certain statement, that can be verifiable: that is, it's verifiable that the expert has said it. We certainly don't have to verify that what the expert said was true: if we were to do that, we'd end up presenting at most only one side of any controversy, violating NPOV.

Wikipedia is not necessarily supposed to present the theory and its refutation. Perhaps ideally. However, Wikipedia is supposed to present a summary of the controversy as it's covered in reliable published sources. If those sources present the theory and its refutation, then that's what we summarize; but if those sources spend all their time talking about experts' gut feelings or some other aspect of the whole situation, then we have to summarize that.

Statements which are not supported by reliable published sources can be removed per WP:V. The sentence suggested by David Rohl above looks fine to me as a compromise. Thanks for your comments, Nigedo. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Evangelicals paragraph

I'm moving this paragraph from the article to here on the talk page until sources can be found for it, per WP:V, since it's had citation tags for at least 2 weeks. (I had tried via a Google Scholar search but hadn't found useful references.)

Rohl's thesis enjoys some popularity in evangelical and creationist circles. Some Bible literalists have embraced Rohl's findings as confirmation of the historicity of the biblical narrative; others have been vehemently opposed to Rohl's chronological revision.

Rohl’s theories, as they relate to biblical interpretation (specifically synchronizing archaeological evidence with events and personalities described in the Old Testament) have received considerable attention in evangelical and creationist circles. Some Bible literalists have embraced Rohl's findings as confirmation of the historicity of the biblical narrative. Others have been vehemently opposed to Rohl's chronological revision and the apparent biblical synchronisms that result, referring to fellow evangelical Christian, Kenneth Kitchen, as an authoritative critic of Rohl’s work.

Also this last bit of the lead:

Rohl's thesis enjoys some popularity in evangelical and creationist circles. Some Bible literalists have embraced Rohl's findings as confirmation of the historicity of the biblical narrative; others have been vehemently opposed to Rohl's chronological revision.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not evangelicals in the american sense of the word. As far as I know, they were of the theology section of Leiden University. That was a mainstream Dutch protestant (PKN) study (like anglican or lutheran), widely different from evangelical beliefs. I propose to change it to Theological or perhaps protestant discussion.

83.87.139.4 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For the quote from Hornung. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really down to me. As no-one seemed to be able find a quote in print from a senior Egyptologist which rejected the NC, I asked Chris Bennett if he knew of anything that had been published in the last decade. The only thing we could come up with was this quote from Hornung which does not deal specifically with the NC but radical revisions of chronology in general. However, as Chris explained to me, it makes sense to put it just before the words 'such out of hand rejection' already in the article but which previously had no context. So I decided to edit it into the article. I think this is just about as good as you are going to get in terms of an authoritative anti-revision stance ... but it does expose the attitude of certain academics in the historical disciplines to new radical ideas, which they do indeed tend to reject out of hand. Chris reads this quote 'as tarring all radical reductionism with the same brush, whether or not it is fair to do so (IMO it is not)'. David Rohl (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate location of new section

A new section has been added concerning scientific dating. I have no objection to this in principle ... if it is a balanced discussion with all the arguments against the reliability of C14 dating methods (calibration issues, selectivity of samples, rejection of results that do not conform to expectations, conflicts between the conventional historical chronology and scientific dating methods, etc, etc) but it is ridiculous to put this section at the top of the article, before anything of the theory has even been explained. If it is to be included, it needs to go way lower down where the other responses are located. Please either remove it, or improve it to include the counter arguments, and place it in the appropriate place.David Rohl (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to a more appropriate location, hopefully someone else will work in the wording. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr Pierce Furlong PhD

I have come across a PhD which is a rare example of a scholarly response to Kitchen's criticisms of the revised chronology of the TIP - particularly the proposed overlap between the 21st and 22nd Dynasties in Egypt. As this WP article lays considerable emphasis on Kitchen's '100 per cent nonsense' critique of the NC, in which he is labelled as a leading authority on both the TIP and the Bible, I believe it is highly relevant to include in the article the views of a bona fide scholar who does not accept Kitchen's emphatic dismissal and deals with his main criticisms within a PhD. Just such support for the NC and criticism of Kitchen's position has been long demanded here. So I am providing quotes on this NC discussion page from Dr Furlong which I intend to edit into the article at the relevant points - unless I receive objections here within the next two weeks. If no such objections are received, I will go ahead and include the quotes on the understanding that they are relevant and acceptable. Here are the quotes from the PhD thesis 'Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Chronology (c. 1600 – 700 BC)' by Dr Pierce James Furlong (published by Melbourne University, Department of History):

On the TIP anomalies:

"Kitchen answers such points as these [on the NC TIP anomalies] by making the general argument that a gap in our knowledge does not equate to a gap in antiquity. That is, the original evidence that might have resolved these anomalies has either not yet been unearthed, or else it has already been irretrievably destroyed. While this may be a perfectly understandable position to take, nevertheless, current research has to address the evidence as it now stands, and to try and resolve the anomalies that currently exist. Also, some of the accompanying arguments presented by Kitchen do not appear particularly convincing. For example, regarding the arrangement of tombs occupied by Psusennes I and Osorkon II, Kitchen notes how Pharaoh Amenemope came to later occupy the chamber originally prepared for the wife of his predecessor, Psusennes I, eliminating every trace of her ‘effects’ in the process. But to compare a chamber belonging to a queen with a whole tomb belonging to a king is not really to compare like with like. A king’s presence is far more likely to permeate the whole tomb, while this queen’s effects, even accepting that she had actually been buried in the chamber reserved for her, may well have been restricted to just her coffin and a few accompanying funerary objects. Similarly, regarding the lack of Apis bull evidence from the entire 21st Dynasty, Kitchen notes how no Apis bulls have been found from the time of their first mention during the 1st Dynasty until their actual appearance under Amenophis III of the 18th Dynasty; and he playfully asks if this absence of bulls should not also lead one to collapse sixteen centuries of Egyptian history to eliminate this artifactual gap? But, once again, this is hardly a fair comparison: nobody knows where these earlier Apis bulls may have been buried, or indeed how. On the other hand, the absence of 21st Dynasty burials constitutes a clear gap in an otherwise well defined archaeological sequence."

On the Shoshenq/Shishaq equation:

"Kitchen also dismisses the apparent discrepancy between the Shoshenq I campaign itinerary and the Old Testament (OT) account of Shishak’s activities as ‘frivolous and exaggerated’. … he argues that since Shoshenq’s topographical list is incomplete, Jerusalem (and presumably every other important fortified town in Judah) may have been lost in a lacuna. However, the attention paid by numerous scholars to the fact that not a single highland Judean town appears in the Karnak list would indicate that this matter is hardly frivolous or exaggerated."

On the genealogies of the period:

"Kitchen has also argued that the unbroken series of High Priests of Amun in Thebes, together with the genealogies of other noble families, allow for no significant shortening of the conventional chronology, and that to deny this evidence and argue for genealogical gaps is no better than a ‘baseless illusion’. However … what is currently seen as possibly the principal objection against overlapping the 21st and 22nd Dynasties, namely, this genealogical data, actually provides the basis upon which to argue for just such an overlap; as well as, I would argue, the evidence for unravelling the true chronology for this whole period."

And about the 21st/22nd Dynasty overlap in general:

"... there are no serious obstacles to overlapping the whole of the 21st Dynasty with the 22nd Dynasty, thereby dramatically reducing the duration of the TIP."

Comments please.David Rohl (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless he discusses your work, I don't see how it belongs here. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This article shouldn't turn into a discussion of different ideas/approaches to AE chronology, it needs to focus on what the title says. I feel even stronger about this having just read [4]. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doug but I do not understand your objection. This is a direct academic response to Kitchen's criticism of the NC revision of the TIP as published in A Test of Time and which forms the foundation of the NC revision. The points Furlong comments on are all in the WP NC article as it currently stands. So how this 'does not belong here' I am at a loss to understand. These are not 'different ideas', they are the core issues of the NC. How do you come to that conclusion? It is a pertinent response to Kitchen's criticism which is referred to in this WP NC article on at least two occasions. If you would like to remove Kitchen's criticism, then please do. If not, then what is your objection to a scholarly response to that criticism which, as I said, is something that has been demanded here by anti-NC editors? Please would you articulate what it is that you think is not NC material and not part of the NC thesis. I am mystified.David Rohl (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Doug, could you respond to my last posting so that we can tidy this up? And can I just point out that you were appreciative of me adding a very general comment from Hornung dealing with radical revised chronologies as a whole, but now object to Furlong's much more specific comments on the main criticisms of the TIP anomalies raised in A Test of Time. So I have to ask the question: did you thank me for the general non-specific comment from Hornung because it was anti revised chronology and then object to the much more pertinent and specific comments from Furlong because they were pro revised chronology?David Rohl (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems relevant enough. And in general, we should avoid creating a Catch 22 where a view is too WP:FRINGE to discuss in detail in a general article, whilst discussion of the view in its own article is opposed as becoming too general. This is particular a danger here because the view inherently covers so much intellectual territory. (It would probably help somewhat to try and expand the more general Egyptian chronology / Conventional Egyptian chronology articles.) Rd232 ^talk 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I will give it another week and, if no objections are raised here, I will try editing the Furlong quotes into the NC article at the relevant points. I take it that, since Doug has not replied to my request for clarification, he no longer has an issue with this?David Rohl (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been busy and haven't looked at this. Go ahead, we'll see how it plays in the article itself. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that this is discussing NC specifically, but I'm a bit wary of including out of context material from an unpublished PhD dissertation which has been cherry-picked for inclusion in the article by Rohl himself. What is the larger thrust of Furlong's argument? How does his discussion of NC and Kitchen fit into that? Is there other relevant material that Rohl hasn't quoted because it doesn't support his argument as well? john k (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for This Article

I am new to this subject, but find this piece of criticism of Rohl telling, http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=721. I am even a rather committed Christian, but I don't find poorly constructed theories either helpful to men's understanding of history, or edifying to "Christians" eager to have explanations for difficulties, any more than I find "skeptics" in the sense of religiously zealous obsessives in attacking Judaism/Christianity/biblical stuff and theories argued by scholars that monotheism derives from Akhenaten/ism with a lot of other badly substantiated theories subsumed to support it, to be helpful or convincing. Key I think is discerning the serious scholars from those who need to sell for their next grant or speaking engagement. As for the merger idea, I think it is a bad one: it is good to have the specifics on a subject, and Wikipedia keeps having articles, even well-documented ones, killed off such that its early spirit of actually harboring the world's knowledge is under well-deserved heavy criticism. And a man and his theories may not be separable, but neither are they indistinguishable. Perhaps this article would benefit in quality by researchers showing the connections between Rohl's and others' theories, that is, what evidences he uses or argues from, and where these have been criticized, as is done the article I link to above. I want to repeat however, that as a world repository for knowledge, anything that has been taken seriously by a goodly segment of American Evangelicalism, given the exceptional, raw power America wields in the world today, is likely to spread around and affect the entire world to some extents--even if just among zealous religious folk of similar persuasions and who have contact or receive communications from people in America, so having a display of the details of such a thing, be it an event or theory, with or without positive or negative criticisms, is worth the while and valuable for historical record. As for criticisms, thel likes of these are neither tenditious nor mean, but quite fair,

[quote]"Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework[...], but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination."[/quote]

[quote]By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework. Professor Eric Hornung acknowledges that "...there remain many uncertainties in the Third Intermediate Period, as critics such as David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 [BC] for Shoshenq’s campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations."[/quote]

What would happen to material like this if not become substantially redacted out if this were merged into the article on Rohl himself? They are critical, by not cynical; call the whole of his work as problematic and unconvincing, and offer sympathy with for the widespreadly perceived difficulties in Egyptian chronology (will not here try to go into details, but sufficed to say it probably makes great scholars want to bash their heads through the desks or archaelogical sites at which they are working!), yet recognize some value in it.

As to referencing sources of material with which the guy is working, here are some other new Chronologists (probably taken more seriously than Rohl among academics) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/New_Chronology and I notice that Peter James is missing from that search, so added him to it, and also note that no mention of his influence is made in this article. TheResearchPersona (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that the article you reference from the Bad Archaeology web site is full of errors and displays a shocking lack of knowledge on the subject. If the man who wrote the criticism had kept up to date on the material, he would not have written most of it. What is telling about such bad archaeology is that he is completely unaware of the fact that I wrote the first article on the revised chronology (later New Chronology) with Peter James way back in 1982. The article was called 'An Alternative to the Velilkovskian Chronology of Ancient Egypt: A Preview of Some Work in the Field of Ancient History' (SIS Workshop Vol. 5:2 (1982), pp. 12-22). As the primary author (note the authorship is not given in alphabetical order because I actually wrote it and James was the secondary author), the arguments about the Serapeum and Tanis tombs were mine and not copied from James as the Bad Archaeology critique claims. His insinuations that I borrowed the arguments from Velikovsky and James are simply wrong and disingenuous.

The author is also in complete ignorance of the material evidence that he uses in his criticisms. The Akheperre Psusennes block (not a lintel) was, in fact, not found under the Osorkon II tomb at Tanis or formed part of its construction ... that has been shown to be quite untrue (see JACF 8, pp. 50-56, http://www.newchronology.org/cgi-bin/somsid.cgi?session=1327759810&page=html/volumes/08) and the so-called Shoshenk I stela is not a stela at all but rather a lintel block from the Apis House in Memphis (not at the Serapeum) ... and the NC does not argue that there were no burials from the early 22nd Dynasty ... far from it. All this is fallacious and misrepresents the archaeological facts.

It helps if people who criticise theories make the effort to read the published material and understand it. The danger with the internet is that anyone can set up a web site called 'Bad Archaeology' as a place for them to put forward their views and criticisms, even if they are not qualified to do so or have very little knowledge about the material they are dealing with. There is no way to respond to such misguided criticisms, as they don't invite responses on the sites they control. In this case the author quite obviously does not understand the archaeology of the Serapeum (which I studied in great detail and was directly involved in the excavations in the 1980s, being the co-author (along with Professor Mohamed Ibrahim, now Minister of Antiquities in Egypt) of the definitive paper/report on the recent excavations of the Lesser Vaults by Mohamed Ibrahim (see JACF 2, pp. 6-26, http://www.newchronology.org/cgi-bin/somsid.cgi?session=1327759810&page=html/volumes/02).

The author of Bad Archaeology also shows his ignorance of the latest research when he claims that HPM Shedsunefertem served under Tjetkheperre Psusennes II and Hedjkheperre Shoshenk I. He fails to consider that I (later supported by Dr Aidan Dodson) demonstrated that there were two kings of the TIP bearing the cartouches Hedjkheperre Shoshenk (Professor Kenneth Kitchen acknowledges this and numbers them Shoshenk I and Shoshenk IV). So HPM Shedsunefertem of the Memphite Genealogy could have been a contemporary of Shoshenk IV (as the NC proposes) and not Shoshenk I.

The Bad Archaeology review is aggressively inaccurate and misrepresents the theory and my position in a cavalier fashion. It shows a complete lack of understanding of my position ... I am not a fundamentalist Christian as it implies ... something which everyone but the most ignorant individuals well know. I suggest you try to find out more about the subject before believing everything you read on the internet ... that is the danger with Wikipedia and why it has such a poor reputation. To use internet web sites for much of its source material is to allow ignorance and prejudice to prevail where proper scholarship should be allowed to flourish. As you claim to be a Christian, I suggest you read the recently published book by Professor Tom Tribelhorn entitled 'My Professor Says the Bible is a Myth' (Hevel Media International, 2010) for a more measured view of the New Chronology theory. Or, if you can manage it, you can get a detailed review of the New Chronology from the specialist archaeological standpoint by reading P. van der Veen & U. Zerbst: Biblische Archaologie am Scheideweg? (Hanssler Verlag, 2002).David Rohl (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

David Rohl: So you are accusing the authors of the website of lying when they claim they are real archaeologists? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. Where do I say that the authors of Bad Archaeology are not archaeologists? I am not accusing them of lying as you incorrectly state ... just making it clear that they themselves are bad archaeologists when it comes to Egyptology or Near Eastern archaeology, as is abundantly obvious from their lack of knowledge of the material they are criticising. You seem to contend that all archaeologists are qualified to talk about Egyptian archaeology when the vast majority are archaeologists working in other areas of the world and in other disciplines. That's like saying all doctors are good brain surgeons. I gave sufficient examples of how they got things wrong. I suggest you look at the evidence instead of misinterpreting what I wrote.David Rohl (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

'My Professor Says the Bible is a Myth' (Hevel Media International, 2010) is a self-published book by someone Dean at the unaccredited Florida St. Petersburg Theological Seminary with a couple of graduate degrees which appear unaccredited also. P. van der Veen & U. Zerbst seem to have better credentials but it's interesting that their publisher is a Christian publishing house, not an academic one. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"That's like saying all doctors are good brain surgeons": That's a misleading analogy (and even irrelevant, since the point is not about skill but academic expertise). You need not be extremely specialised in the field in question to recognise bad methodology, especially outright crankery. Basic training at the methods of a larger field, combined with research in the narrower field, often more than suffices to help detect weak, fallacious etc. arguments and where somebody got basic facts wrong.

In any case, you seem to be suggesting that neither of the archaeologists have a clue about Egyptology just because they dismiss your point of view as weakly founded, without even being sure that neither of them is an Egyptologist. Even if both lacked expertise within Egyptology, they are still archaeologists – this website was not set up by some random person (as you essentially suggested), but people who know what they are talking about when they talk about archaeology; there's no prima facie reason to call them worse archaeologists than you, especially when you can only adduce sources in your defence which are highly suspicious of bias, and lack of scholarly rigour. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean like everybody can see that conventional Egyptology got basic facts wrong? I mean, independent what David Rohl suggests, it is pretty clear that many dates just don't add up. Egyptological chronology is internally inconsistent. Biblical dating is internally inconsistent. Against each other nothing matches no matter how one looks at it.

Even if one were to reject what David Rohl proposes, at least the flaws he points out in the conventional chronology of Egypt and the entire Middle-east are definitely real. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the point of your remark. Who exactly disputes those flaws? I thought it is widely understood that there is no neat chronology with precise datings, so far, only a very approximately correct timeline.

It's not really helpful to address those flaws with a solution that's even more flawed – the cure is worse than the disease.

Not to mention that at least conventional Egyptology doesn't start from an assumption and tries to fit all evidence in that Procrustes bed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Florian, I think you need to distinguish between British archaeologists, excavating in the UK, and Egyptologists discussing complex historical and chronological issues. You can be a competent British archaeologist digging in muddy fields for Anglo-Saxon or Roman remains and know very little about the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. 'Academic expertise' in one discipline does not mean that they know what they are talking about in an unrelated field (especially when dealing with historical interpretation and not dirt archaeology). Hence the analogy of not all doctors being brain surgeons = not all archaeologists being historians of ancient Egyptian civilisation. And their qualifications as 'real archaeologists', as they arrogantly call themselves, does not give them the right to misinform or accuse people they don't know as having a religious agenda or stealing ideas from other scholars. I also studied at the Institute of Archaeology in London (like one of these 'real archaeologists') and completed courses in Egyptian archaeology, Levantine archaeology, Minoan and Mycenaean archaeology, as well as the history of the Near East, Greek history, Egyptian environment and hieroglyphics. I excavated in Syria with the I of A under Peter Parr, former head of Levantine Archaeology at the Institute. I am also Director of the Eastern Desert Survey in Egypt. What these guys wrote in their Bad Archaeology review of my work is quite simply wrong and misinformed ... simply because they only have a shallow understanding of the issues and evidence involved. This is what Peter Parr of the Institute of Archaeology had to say about my work ... and he at least knows me!

"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. Since his student days Rohl has become a successful author of books and maker of films on ancient history and archaeology, all of them exhibiting the quite extraordinary enthusiasm he has always had for the subject, and what can only be described as a passion to disseminate the results of his research among a wide, non-professional public." [See http://davidrohlontour.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/david-rohl-testimonials.html]

Then again, maybe Peter Parr (who excavated with Kathleen Kenyon at Jericho and Jerusalem) is a bad archaeologist as well.David Rohl (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

H doesn't say anything about your work in that quote - he says your a nice guy and well read. His praise for your work is that it is "enthusiastic". It is quite funny in fact that you would present this quote as an endorsement of your work, when the quote clearly looks as if Parr went to great lengths exactly to give a positive recommendation of you as a person without endorsing your chronology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Much of this seems to be semi-off-topic -- this is not a competition to see whose academic archaeological credentials shine most brightly, and the outcome of such a contest would not really be too directly relevant to the article. I know nothing about the "Bad archaeology" site, but if the people there are reputable professional archaeologists in good standing, then what they say could be useful for this article -- without, however, necessarily getting into all the nitty-gritty technical details of criticisms, rebuttals, counter-criticisms, counter-rebuttals, etc. etc... AnonMoos (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the editor of Bad Archaeology has apologised for the article about me and has removed it.David Rohl (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Furlong, Yahoo group

I removed the Yahoo group sourced statement and restored the earlier text in that section. As for Furlong, this is what I've just written on an user talk page: Looking at Furlong, why are we including him at all? Yes, his dissertation was published in the Gorgias Dissertations series, but I can see no evidence it was been taken seriously in the academic world. I think he fails WP:WEIGHT and we should not use him. His views aren't significant - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As I said, I can't find such sources discussing him. As an aside, I don't think getting a PhD makes you a scholar. I'm really sorry I didn't pay enough attention to this article as that should never have been allowed to stay and Rohl should never have added it. I've also removed the bit sourced to the Yahoo group and restored the original text that was in that section. I'm pretty clear in my mind that Furlong does not belong but I'll await a response before removing it. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dougweller, I totally agree about the removal of the Yahoo group content. As to Furlong, I also did not see it was a Rohl addition. As I indicated on my user talkpage, I think we can rightfully prune Furlong to one sentence. Something like: "Pierce Furlong, in his dissertation on ancient Near Eastern chronology, supports some of the criticisms of Kitchen's chronology raised by Rohl and Bimson." Then cite that. It fits in with some of the other stuff, keeps a reliable source, but doesn't give undue weight. I believe you're right, it falls under WP:WEIGHT (not WP:Verifiability or WP:FRINGE, etc.). That's my two cents. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tuckerresearch: Thanks. I'll admit I still have a problem - who is he other than someone who wrote a relevant PhD? If I read the article without knowing anything about the subject or Egyptology, I'd either wonder who in the world he was and be annoyed there was no description, or assume he was an Egypologist of the same stature of the others mentioned. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other PhDs out there who say the opposite. Another question/issue - here's what Rohl added[5] and I've also done a search. I can't find that Furlong actually mentions Rohl. Now as this article is not about Kitchen nor is it about chronology in general (in the relevant area), but about Rohl's ideas, if he doesn't mention Rohl than it doesn't belong here. I'm sure David Rohl in editing this article didn't understand what we expect from sources.

Well, if Furlong doesn't mention Rohl, I'd still argue a brief mention is acceptable as this article is about Rohl's chronology and criticism of the standard (Kitchenesque) model of the TIP. In that instance, I'd think a one sentence mention and citation is fine. If the consensus of other editors, you included, think it strays too far afield, and want to remove it. I'd buy the argument. I guess what Rohl was trying to say was, "Look, others agree with me on the fishiness of the Shoshenk=Shishak identification, so my theory holds water!" I think that's fine, but others might find that a stretch since it doesn't directly address Rohl's New Chronology. That's how I see both sides of the argument for Furlong's inclusion. So, if other editors want to chime in, please do so. To include or not to include, that is the question. (And I say, if we include, make it my one sentence job above.) TuckerResearch (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Furlong has Rohl's A Test of Time in the bibliography, but it seems his conclusions mostly differ from Rohl's. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The “In Egyptology” section needs to give the reader an accurate picture of how Rohl’s theory has been received in mainstream scholarship. At present the section is giving the reader the impression that Ken Kitchen is an idiot, and that the conventional chronology is built on only the flimsiest of evidence. Furlong’s view represents that of only an extreme minority of scholars, and his argument is, in some ways, rather outrageous. Since Rohl’s reception in Egyptology has been overwhelmingly that of rejection the section on “In Egyptology” should be about the scholarly rejection of the new chronology. It would make much more sense if the section focused on Kitchen’s criticism of the new chronology rather than Furlong’s criticism of Kitchen. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay everybody, I think it's safe to say nobody else is going to comment! What is our consensus? I agree that the Furlong quotations should all be junked, my proposal is that it all be reduced down to one referenced paragraph and quotation. Might I suggest:

In Egyptology

Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology, continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic and popular publications. Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense."'. By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework. Professor Eric Hornung acknowledges that "...there remain many uncertainties in the Third Intermediate Period, as critics such as David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 [BC] for Shoshenq’s campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations." Academic debate on the New Chronology, however, has largely not taken place in Egyptological or archaeological journals. Most discussions are to be found in the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences' Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (1985–2006), which specialised in the chronological issues generally neglected in mainstream Egyptology.

Chris Bennett (1996), while saying "I am quite certain that Rohl’s views are wrong" notes that besides academic debate on problems with the conventional chronology, such as those associated with the Thera eruption, a "far deeper challenge ... has been mounted in the public arena." The history of this challenge to mainstream consensus outside of academic debate originates with the 1991 Centuries of Darkness by Peter James, together with Rohl, co-founder of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences. Centuries of Darkness postulated 250 years of non-existent "phantom time" in the conventional chronology based on an archaeological "Dark Age".

Given the specialist nature of Egyptian chronology, most academics defer to Kenneth Kitchen for the counter arguments against the New Chronology. Kitchen's main criticisms have focused on Rohl's Third Intermediate Period revision which proposes an overlap between the 21st and 22nd Dynasties. In particular Kitchen challenges the validity of the chronological anomalies raised by Rohl, questioning whether they are true anomalies and offering his own explanations for the apparent problems raised by Rohl. Kitchen accuses New Chronologists of being obsessed with trying to close gaps in the archaeological record by lowering the dating. However, in his 2007 Melbourne University PhD thesis, Pierce Furlong holds that "there are no serious obstacles to overlapping the whole of the 21st Dynasty with the 22nd Dynasty, thereby dramatically reducing the duration of the TIP."

Grouping all radical revisions of Egyptian chronology together without distinction, Hornung, in his Introduction to the Handbook of Ancient Egyptian Chronology, makes the following statement:

We will always be exposed to such attempts, but they could only be taken seriously if not only the arbitrary dynasties and rulers, but also their contexts, could be displaced.... In the absence of such proofs we can hardly be expected to "refute" such claims, or even to respond in any fashion ... It is thus neither arrogance nor ill-will that leads the academic community to neglect these efforts which frequently lead to irritation and distrust outside of professional circles (and are often undertaken with the encouragement of the media). These attempts usually require a rather lofty disrespect of the most elementary sources and facts and thus do not merit discussion. We will therefore avoid discussion of such issues in our handbook, restricting ourselves to those hypotheses and discussions which are based on the sources.

Bennett (1996), whilst not accepting Rohl's thesis, suggests that such out-of-hand rejection may be inappropriate in Rohl's case, since "there is a world of difference between [Rohl's] intellectual standing and that of Velikovsky, or even Peter James" since, unlike "popular radicalisms" such as those of Velikovsky, Bauval or Hancock, "Rohl has a considerable mastery of his material."

Professor Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College, London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, states:

An extreme low chronology has been proposed recently by a group devoted to revising the absolute chronology of the Mediterranean and Western Asia: P. James et al., Centuries of Darkness, London, 1991; similar, though slightly diverging revisions, are upheld by another group, too, and partly published in the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum. The hub for the dating of other cultures is Egypt, so much of the work of both groups focuses on Egyptian evidence. Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework presented in these volumes, but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination.

References

What does everybody think? TuckerResearch (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about using a PhD thesis that hasn't been picked up in other academic work - it doesn't have the significance we look for. WP:UNDUE says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". I can't see any justification for using Furlong, but maybe I'm missing something. Also remember that "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're for removing the whole paragraph beginning "Given the specialist nature of Egyptian chronology..."? What about just this:

Chris Bennett (1996), while saying "I am quite certain that Rohl’s views are wrong" notes that besides academic debate on problems with the conventional chronology, such as those associated with the Thera eruption, a "far deeper challenge ... has been mounted in the public arena." The history of this challenge to mainstream consensus outside of academic debate originates with the 1991 Centuries of Darkness by Peter James, together with Rohl, co-founder of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences. Centuries of Darkness postulated 250 years of non-existent "phantom time" in the conventional chronology based on an archaeological "Dark Age". Pierce Furlong holds that "there are no serious obstacles to overlapping the whole of the 21st Dynasty with the 22nd Dynasty, thereby dramatically reducing the duration of the TIP."

References

If you don't find that acceptable, I guess you've made the decision. I think a brief mention from a dissertation is fine, as WP:RS states, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised." If you want to put more emphasis on the sentence, "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature..." that's your prerogative. I still hold a brief citation is not violating WP:UNDUE, though the way it is in the article now is, I believe, violating WP:UNDUE. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Since I've made my comments about uncited dissertations before more publicly at RSN, I'd be a hypocrite to retract them here. What I'd suggest is drop Furlong entirely, leaving all the rest - except for the paragraph discussing Kitchen. Even with Furlong gone, that really needs to be sourced directly to Kitchen (at the moment it's sourced to Furlong). I don't see any reason to get rid of anything else, and we should have Kitchen in here as well, just properly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems pretty clear that a consensus to remove Furlong has been reached so I have removed his quotes from the article. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess, if you consider two a consensus. I was hoping User:Iry-Hor would make a suggestion. And I was hoping my suggestion would remove the offending "attacks" on Kitchen and keep a citation, but one is dead set against anything pro-Rohl and one doesn't like dissertations. So, whatever, fine by me... TuckerResearch (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Iry-Hor had already stated that he doesn’t “care in the least about David Rohl and his chronology” [[6]] so I didn’t anticipate him participating in this conversation. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about Rohl's chronology but I care about Wikipedia's fairness and integrity. I agree that PhD theses, even published, are not necessarily authoritative sources, and may even be unrealiable, but so are other published materials. I don't quite see why Furlong should be removed all together, may be a simple footnote would suffice or something in the article mentioning that this was a PhD thesis and should be considered with caution. Thus I agree with @TuckerResearch, the attackes should be removed but Furlong should still be mentioned to preserve fairness, while it should be given a place that clearly reflects that his PhD is not the main reference in the domain. On the personal note, and to show that I have no conflict of interest, I believe that both Furlong and Rohl are dead wrong. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Pierce Furlong even an Egyptologist? Or are we operating on the premise that anyone with a PhD in history can call themselves an Egyptologist for the purpose of the “In Egyptology” section? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Amélie Kuhrt is not an Egyptologist either. Easily fixed by changing "In Egyptology" to "In Academia". TuckerResearch (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what Furlong is actually doing now? Having a PhD doesn't make you an academic. Obviously I'm not going to change my position on using his PhD as a source since as I've said, I'm on record as saying that WP:UNDUE means we need to show that a PhD or its author has some significance in the area. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So we need to properly assess Furlong's academic standing. How do we do that? Has Furlong published other articles since he was awarded his PhD or did he move out of acamedia completely? Iry-Hor (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I did look a few days ago but found nothing. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Furlong purportedly got his degree from the University of Melbourne. [[7]] Macquarie University and Monash University are apparently the only Universities in Australia that offer Egyptology degrees. [[8]] University degree programs can change, but without additional information I think it’s safe to assume that Furlong isn’t an Egyptologist in the traditional sense.

I also cannot find anything that he has done since his dissertation. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Same here, I did not find any other publications and his PhD thesis was cited only once. I guess this is sufficient to say that his opinion cannot be given undue weight on wikipedia. I would therefore advocate his removal from the article, but would like to hear @TuckerResearch opinion on Furlong's academic standing. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't found anything he's done since his dissertation either. But a dissertation is scholarship, and WP:RS says they are reliable sources. I don't think one sentence and one citation violates WP:UNDUE, it's not as if readers won't understand the phrase "Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology..." that begins the section. But I've decided to just drop the issue entirely. So, no Furlong. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed "dubious" template

I removed the "dubious" template dated November 2011 which had this comment attached to it: "the conventional Egyptological chronology places king Solomon *anywhere*? Why would Egyptologists publish dates for Old Testament characters?" It is not dubious at all that the synchronization of Solomon's reign with the Late Bronze Age is an integral part of Rohl's theory. The mis-identification of the Biblical Shishaq character with the Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I forces Solomon to predate Shoshenq I by only a few years in the conventional chronology, since the Bible states that Shishaq defeated Israel in the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam and carried off the treasures of the Temple to Egypt. It's also not at all dubious that conventional chronology places Solomon in the Iron Age on the basis of this synchronization. Resynchronize by eliminating approximately 350 years of Egyptian pseudohistory as Rohl does, and equate Shishaq with Ramesses II, and Solomon ends up, not in the Iron Age any more, but back in the Late Bronze which Israelite archeology reveals to have been a much more prosperous time. Dlw20070716 (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And I removed the bit about "conventional chronology" as ambiguous and unnecessary. Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)