Talk:Wiseman hypothesis

message: Since there is no professional or reliable scholarship underlying the hypothesis, it is only fair to warn people who come to this page that, essentially, they are dealing with religious fantasy.RED DAVE 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's why I removed your additions. (a) The statement that "the Wiseman hypothesis enjoys no support in the scholarly community" is a factual assertion that requires a reliable source to make it verifiable. (b) If a reliable source has judged the hypothesis as "an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to salvage their beliefs about Bible authorship" then we can note that as the source's opinion, but cannot propose this interpretation of our own accord without violating WP:NOR. (c) I understood the section as a whole to be intended to imply the falsity of the hypothesis, which violates WP:NPOV. I gather from your desire to "warn people ... that ... they are dealing with religious fantasy" that this was indeed your intention. The correct way to show that the subject of an article is a fringe theory is to cite scholarly responses to it. EALacey 08:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there have been any scholarly responses to the Wiseman hypothesis - it's so far out of the scholarly mainstream that it's just ignored. PiCo (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of the Wiseman hypothesis 

message: I don't have an axe to grind one way or the other on this, I'm just passing along info. I was editing the Book of Genesis article, and happened to notice that it did not mention this one.  I added a See also link, which was immediately removed with the explanation on my talk page: "That  the Wiseman hypothesis is pseudo-scholarship is a fact, not a point of view - rather like the world being round. It's never mentioned in the scholarly literature, never cited in scholarly books, is simply ignored by scholars." mdash; I don't know one way or the other about this, but figured that the info ought to be passed along here. If it is true that there is overwhelming scholarly disagreement with the Wiseman hypothesis, this article ought to mention that fact. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above comments.  --Zephyr Axiom (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pseudo-scholarship? 

message: All the sources in the article appear to be from parties holding to Biblical literalism, and most (all?) of them appear to be to sources with little (no?) scholarly credibility. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this notable?  Are there any RS that mention it?Martinlc (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This does need work, but it is a valid theory that's been around for some time. Allenroyboy (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, if notable, it should be easy to find RSs.  My quick search only turned up mentions derived from t     he authors, this wikipedia page, or non-RS discussions based on the book -an RS would be a substantial review / critique by recognised biblical scholars published by a reputable publisher.Martinlc (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV & reliability of sources 

message: Please quote where this source supports the following passages:
and
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The top paragraph about clay tablets would probably be better sourced from Cambrige History of the Bible, pp. 32,33. If that looks acceptible then it should replace ref #3. The second citation was made to the last sentence only, about Wiseman's theory challenging to the consensus. The other parts of that long paragraph were earlier referenced. And this ref addresses the wiseman consensus challenge, New International Commentary of the Old Testament, by Victor P. Hamilton, pp. 8,9. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) The Cambridge History of the Bible reference, although generally relevant, is unsuitable as a specific reference for the first passage, as it makes no reference to the Bible, Biblical figures or Hebrews, nor to cuneiform script. (ii) The New International Commentary of the Old Testament passage only prefatorially acknowledges that the Hypothesis is a challenge to the consensus, and spends most of its time discussing three problems that it sees in it. WP:DUE weight should be given to these problems. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBE 

message: I note there is a tag to merge this article in Donald Wiseman. This is a different Wiseman, of course, and so I would oppose the merge. If this article fails notability (and I'm not convinced it does), then it should be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Is P.J.Wiseman notable enough to have his own article? If so, I think I'll try to write one. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 07:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless that article is a merger of this article with Days of Revelation Theory‎ (which is likewise mostly about Wiseman's claims). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: GI Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hrafn for the link cleanup. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on Wiseman? 

message: This article has been  edited by Allenroyboy - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive and 8een4Tfor, blocked as a sockpuppet of Trabucold Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trabucogold/Archive although I believe they are the same. Whether or not they are, a number of edits of socks of both (and the puppetmasters) have been copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socks & copyvio 

message: I'm not really sure (it is a long time back that I read Wiseman) but is the Kolophon not the connection between two tablets, consisting of the repetition of the last line of the former tablet? What you mean in the article as "Kolophon" is as far as I know in fact the "toledoth-formula".--217.13.71.164 (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake?