::The point is that Best is essentially a self-published authority. Morris at least works with a press (though not an academic one; do note that the only thing claimed for him is a calculation which is self-evident, and could be deleted without harm to the article. Let's do so). Hill's published in a magazine that's been around for 61 years and is taken by lots of college libraries. Her claim is modest. Best's is much more elaborate and controversial, therefore with a higher burden of proof. It's very WP:Undue indeed, as it gives the impression of equal status. Go back and have a look at WP:Fringe: "Fringe theory in a nutshell:  
 In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.  
 Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is" "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories." (I just finished genealogizing a third-party source that used an old version of a Wikipedia article to become the source for a new version!). By all standards, this has got to go. Biblical history tends to attract speculations and hypotheses...