Talk:Bob Cornuke/Archive 1

message: Jason Gastrich is POV pushing (again) in this article, which was a simple few sentences of "hero worship" from the born-again perspective until I found it and improved it.  
I'm going to go ahead and figure that it's going to become yet another conflict involving Gastrich because he cannot approach any of these subjects without POV pushing.  He's here, after all, to make Wikipedia more Christian (at least, from his point of view) and insure that "Christians have a voice" at Wikipedia.  The consequence of that is that Gastrich is unable to separate that from his "contributions" whenever the subject even peripherally involves things he considers "Christian."  Gastrich is also using Wikipedia to promote his Christian heroes; and being somewhat developmentally disabled on an emotional level, he acts very much like a spoiled child whenever something is written that he presumes is bad.  We keep seeing it in the article about Bob Cornuke.  
Bob Cornuke, in the reference cited in the article, claims to have found the anchors of the vessel that Paul was sailing when it was involved in the shipwreck described by the account in Scripture.  
Now, I approach this claim scientifically, as a trained and skilled investigator, and I accept that it's a claim that has been made.  I don't assume that the items are the anchors of Paul's ship just because he says they are.  That's not how it works.  No one really knows what it is that Cornuke claims to have found--even he doesn't know.  He makes the assumption, based on his perspective, that he's found the anchors.  No one else knows that, and there's no independent, qualified verification by the archaeological community.
Because Cornuke has made the claim, and because Cornuke is one of Gastrich's personal heroes--and because this is something that Gastrich wants to believe (being a Biblical literist an inerrantist), he (or his AOL sock) keeps changing my "claims to have found" section of that sentence to "has found."  Then he accuses me of "POV pushing."  
I just report the facts, i.e., Cornuke claims to have found the anchors from the ship that Paul was sailing when it sank, as described in Acts 27.  I have yet to find any independent, verifiable, peer-reviewed article from any archaeological reference that these items are the anchors of Paul.  In other words, no one else seems to want to make that assertion.  Shucks, the reference that is associated with that part of the article was found and inserted by me.  It's a link to an article written by Cornuke.  
Gastrich, the born-again Christian (sort of), whom originally wrote the stub article on Cornuke, and whom argues hither and yon at Wikipedia and engages in tantrum throwing when he doesn't get his way, changes it to "has found," claiming that the other version is "POV pushing."  
Have a nice day. - WarriorScribe 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an inerrantist and I think that's a stupid claim to make. What, did Paul scratch his initials on the anchors of every ship he was on?  A.J.A. 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For whatever it's worth, I don't have a problem with Cornuke claiming that's what he's found, as long as an encyclopedia article is clear that it's just a claim.  I understand and agree with your comment.  I simply think that it's less POV if we make it clear, especially given the lack of supporting evidence, that it's a claim, and nothing more.  To argue or insist otherwise is POV-pushing...and, in the case of some, wishful thinking. - WarriorScribe 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess you'll have to see the video, read the book, and hear him speak. I've done 2 of 3 and I'm impressed. And by the way, I didn't read any of the personal attacks above. All I have to do is see WarriorScribe's name and I know it's not worth reading. --Jason Gastrich 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're also impressed by Hovinds science credentials (AiG are not impressed by him). By Misslers apologetics. David D. (Talk) 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite correct...it's easy to impress Gastrich...as long as you're telling him what he wants to believe, already believes, or doesn't have to think about much. - WarriorScribe 03:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: This page has under gone major construction to eliminate the slanderous and libelous material and references and present a less biased, but accurate view of who he is.  All serious edits and updates are welcome, but character attacks or other negative comments, even hidden in non-direct language, will continue to be removed.  The intent of the post is not to push a POV, but a provide a more judicious and balanced description of Robert Cornuke as is the intent of Wikipedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SYITS (talk • contribs) 
: You removed facts about LBU lacking school accreditation. You removed cited articles calling him a "fraud" and "con artist." You inserted uncited material about Wyatt. You inserted uncited claims in his video. Please become familiar with wikipedia policies before you edit further. Arbusto 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, what do you know?  Another Gastrich sock, along with the normal Gastrich whitewash and the pretense that the whitewash is nPOV... - WarriorScribe 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not every whitwasher is Gastrich. JoshuaZ 15:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but what are the odds that it just happens to be someone else, offended at the publication of the sordid details of one of Gastrich's personal heroes...? ;) It could be someone else, but the verbiage, presumption to lecture,  and socks talking to one-another (i.e., "John Doe") tactic is vintage Gastrich. - WarriorScribe 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly, but I think in general you guys are too quick to condemn such socks as Jason. Given his  personality, if it is him, it wiil become much more blatant very soon. JoshuaZ 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand.  You could, quite possibly, be right.  Odds are pretty good that it's Gastrich, particularly given his record, but I could be wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time!  ;) - WarriorScribe 16:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UPDATE (Content removal)

message: Do not remove anymore links. It must be decided through consensus on this page before altering criticism. Arbusto 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please explain how this NZ Cult List source conforms to wikipedia's guidelines and merits inclusion in this article, there has been no valid reason put forward to keep and plenty to remove it, besides, consensus is not at your discretion...  --SYITS 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It conforms to WP:RS. Just because it is "negative" does not make it unreliable. Wikipedia policy wants neutrlity in the presentation, but that is not equated to being "nice" nor excluding criticism. Arbusto 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of criticism 

message: Gordon Franz debunked both Cornuke and Wyatt's claims that the mountain is Biblical Mt. Sinai . Arbusto 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about the whether or not Mt. Sinai is in Arabia.  Besides, Gordon Franz's assertions have many glaring problems as well so it's more appropriate to say Franz "claims" to have debunked Jabal Al-Lawz.  Is this why you insist on putting these ridiculous links on this article?  Are you a follower of Franz, a hero perhaps?  Uh oh ;)  --SYITS 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting response. However, this is criticism by Cornuke's opponents. When you factor in that there has been no independent scientific study to back up Cornuke's supposed discoveries Franz appears to be correct.Irregardless, this source of cited criticism should be included. Arbusto 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mt. Sinai claim debunked 

message: Take a look at my User page and you should realize that I'm not making any attempt to push my agenda here.  Having said that, it's clear that 
#  Not all the sources cited are entirely reputable.
#  The article goes a long way toward manipulating the reader into a conclusion that Mr. Cornuke is a fraud and con artist.
This is an encyclopedia.  While Mr. Cornuke may be a controversial character, this article asserts he is involved in potentially illegal activities.  Whether it is exposing the Foundation to possible liability is irrelevant.  This article needs to be balanced from an unbiased point of view.  
Make mention of controversy and be done with it.  Don't hit the reader over the head with it.  ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV of article 

message: It simply isn't relevant, all the source saying is that it is vaguely possible that they might be anchors from the right time period. To pretend that that constitues useful or notable evidence is ridiculous. Its like if someone claimed to have found Captain Kidd's treasure and claimed as major evidence that someone had confirmed that what I had found might be a pit that might have been dug in the right time period. JoshuaZ 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant because of the statement that was there prior that said there was no independent or scientific confirmation of his discovery, which this statement refutes.  The Prof. independently verified that 1) Ancient anchors were found by Bob in Malta 2) that these anchors were of the time of Paul 3) these anchors were of the size and nature used by Rome for the grain vessel Paul and the others were aboard.  There is nothing left of the boat, as the wood would have rotted away long ago, and anchors would be all that could survice.  In the book, Cornuke lays out a very good case for the location these anchors were found being the exact spot described in Acts 27 where the shipwreck occurred.  So, Cornuke finds anchors in the very spot he believes the Bible describes and gets independent confirmation from a scientist who knows the era like no other that these anchors were of the correct time period and from the right kind of ship to match the Biblical account.  That's as much scientific and independent confirmation as could possibly be found for this kind of discovery, so his confirmation is not trivial or irrelevant.  However, at stake is not the claim of finding the anchors, but to debunk the statement that no independent or scientific verification exists for the claim.  --SYITS 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A little knowledge of marine archaelogy can go a long way. Anchors, anchor stones and other marine artifacts are found throughout the Medditeranean. They are very common. And it would be almost impossible to tell anchors from the year 60 with stones from 20 or 100. Considering how common such artifacts are, its ridiculous to cite that as "scientific confirmation" (and incidentally, wood from shipwrecks actually can last quite a long time under the proper marine conditions). JoshuaZ 16:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, so there's no way to trace a specific ship to a specific piece of wreckage, so the only "confirmation" possible is is that the anchors were of the right kind to be used on a ship as decribed in Acts 27 and of the right time period.  Bob lays out the case for their location.  Again, the book provides a detailed case that these could be the anchors of Paul, but there's obviously no way to prove it for sure.  Please read the book before dismissing it completely and referencing what he "claims" to have found or not, it really is quite compelling.  --SYITS 16:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  A further note, the book details that because of the turbulent conditions that existed in the area, shipwrecks could not last very long, let alone over 1900 years as these were not the "proper marine conditions".  --SYITS 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added Franz's review of the Maltese claim to balance the section out. Arbusto 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just so we all understand:  The only people who really believe that the objects found are the anchors used by the ship, allegedly on which Paul was a passenger, as related to the story in Acts (which is, itself, a collection of unverified and unverifiable accounts), are those who want to believe it, so the Gastrich clone simply exposes, once again, that his/her view and the edits that are derived from that view are strongly non-nPOV.  I'm not going to argue standards of evidence and science against someone whom clearly doesn't understand either of these things.  It's a complete waste of my increasingly valuable time (and I can't help but wonder how a "legendary" police officer and former CSI could fail to understand, either, but that's another argument).  Personally, I could care less, either way, about Cornuke, personally.  What interests me is the unfettered, unadulterated truth, whereever it may lead.  The fact is that the discovery of the anchors is a claim made by Cornuke and his fans, and that claim is disputed.  Another fact is that there is no independent, objective, verifiable concensus within the scientific community, and nothing in the professional literature supporting the claim.  It is, therefore, a claim that remains unverified and it's perfectly reasonable to point that out.  Any attempt to remove that exposes the POV of the editor in question (in this case, the Gastrich clone, SYITS) and constitutes an attempt at whitewash. - WarriorScribe 20:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  An interesting fact from the Gordon article about this Professor claim. "They met Charles Grech, a (now) retired restaurant owner, who found the third anchor in front of the same underwater cave. Mr. Grech led them to a fourth anchor that might have been found off the Munxar Reef, but this was not certain. Prof. Anthony Bonanno, of the University of Malta, examined the third anchor stock in Mr. Grech's home." Arbusto 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just not getting any better for Cornuke and his fans, is it?  - WarriorScribe 03:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malta reference to consistency 

message: A copyedit was undertaken by myself, in order to verify the contents of this article and ensure NPOV, as a result of a communication received. Please contact me on my talk page should you have any further queries on this matter. --Vamp:Willow 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: VampWillow, the article looks 100% better.  Thanks for your hard work.  ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 12:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine by me as well. Arbusto 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review actions 26-27 April 2006 

message: Can we agree that all citations should be in one format?  blah foo? Bastique▼parler voir 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, sorry for removing your reference edits, but they will be restored and we'll get the other ref's cleaned up as well. --SYITS 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations