Talk:Jordan Lead Codices

First comment

That is a great job for a first attempt! Excellent. Jlc46 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This discovery is a likely hoax; why is it being presented as significant?

I am new here and not used to editing, but I have been following this issue and discovered this article. All of the initial hype surrounding this has been reported as if it were factual, with references to unnamed "experts."

But your footnote 14 notes that one named expert, Peter Thonemann, has come up with definitive proof: "The text on your bronze tablet, therefore, makes no sense in its own right, but has been extracted unintelligently from another longer text (as if it were inscribed with the words: ‘t to be that is the question wheth’). The longer text from which it derives is a perfectly ordinary tombstone from Madaba in Jordan which happens to have been on display in the Amman museum for the past fifty years or so. The text on your bronze tablet is repeated, in part, in three different places, meaningless in each case.

The only possible explanation is that the text on the bronze tablet was copied directly from the inscription in the museum at Amman by someone who did not understand the meaning of the text of the inscription, but was simply looking for a plausible-looking sequence of Greek letters to copy. He copied that sequence three times, in each case mixing up the letters alpha and lambda."

It seems to me that this finding should be the most prominent. David Elkington is not an academic, not an expert, not an archaeologist. Fran2244 (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Fran2244

Well the story has evolved. I've reworked the page to tell the story. After all, it will be useful for future reference! But remember we do not know for certain that *all* the material is fake; only the copper tablet has been shown to be fake. Although it is probable, of course, that they're all the same. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes in Israel

I've put it in this category on the basis that that the supposed codices are stated to be located in Israel. Petecarney (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

David Elkington links

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51540533/Lead-Plates-Press-Release

http://www.lauralee.com/elkington.htm

http://www.lauralee.com/stcatherineexperiment.htm

http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/conference/speakers/david.htm

http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/conference/review023.htm

Petecarney (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So, nothing reliable: the Scribd document is an Elkington press release, Laura Lee's site is a talk show for the 'unexplained', and Andrew Collins's site is for publishing articles and books on the 'unexplained'. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

One cautious thought, tho -- all of this is a long time ago. The book was published 11 years ago. Doubtless we were all foolish when we were young. But for all I know Elkington since has spent his time in genuine research. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No definitive proof

The "definitive proof" cited by Peter Thonemann is about bronze tablets, not these lead tablets. There has been no definitive proof given that makes these lead tablets forgeries. Fleckerl (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• here's the proof that the copper alloy tablet exposed as a hoax by Peter Thonemann has a shared origin with the lead tablets pictured in the news reports. Petecarney (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't do blogs. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, we do do the personal and professional blogs of noted academics in the field. As this is recent news, the mainstream media got press releases from Elkington first. Academics read about the find in mainstream media, and all have responded with scepticism on their blogs. I'm sure that a journal article or two might be forthcoming, but it's almost impossible for a scholarly response to be made when nothing is being made available. This procedure is commonly used for garnering interest in fakes. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it's seems clear that the balance is tipping against authenticity, there seems to be a danger here of leading the story in a manner that would normally be widely viewed as unacceptable on Wikipedia. Who is in a position to decide who are "academics in the field," for example? It certainly seems far too early for Wikipedia to be emphatically categorising the codices as fakes, as was done earlier. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely the thing to do in every article is to report, rather than decide? It seems fairly obvious that this is indeed a crude forgery. But *our* opinion is nothing. What we need to do is report what is being said (with references). I agree that blogs cannot generally be used as a reliable source, i.e. not as an authority. But in a current news story like this, where the blogs are breaking and making the story, they are the news we are reporting. To omit them would be to falsify the article, by suppressing criticism. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the available material on this, there are press releases by Elkington with selected quotes from Davies and Barker on one hand, and blog posts by 'academics in the field' (they work in the relevant disciplines in universities; yes, independent researchers can and do do important work, and someone with a university post can be terribly wrong, but this really doesn't look like either of these things). The BBC and other media have picked up on the press releases, which lends them weight. Usually, Wikipedia doesn't use blogs in references because they are self-published personal opinions, but, in this case, they are the only source of academic opinion on this matter. Their opinion is to be trusted far more than that of media editors. The academic opinion seems to show a consensus for extreme scepticism, with one or two ready to cry fake. Unless there is more evidence supporting Elkingon's views, they should be considered a minority opinion. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The blog post that matters is the one by Jim Davila at PaleoJudaica, in which he gives the literal text of two letters, one from Elkington to Dr Peter Thonemann, and Thonemann's reply. That has to be in there. To remove it would be dishonest, because that is THE key data for the story, and will shape what happens next. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The "collapse of the story" section starts off by talking about the "copper tablet" and how it appears to be a forgery. How is this a collapse of the story of the lead tablets? I realize that they both seem to have come from David Elkington, but we can't assume that all the lead tablets are forgeries just because one copper tablet is. Just being objective. Fleckerl (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As this updated posting shows, the proven fake copper tablet and the lead ones have the exact same palm tree. The moulds these tablets were cast in will have been made by stamping shapes into wet clay. In all the cases shown the stamp used was a palm tree with, on its right hand side, three short branches above two long ones. If Mr Elkington's contact Mr Saida found or inherited some genuine antiquities with this palm tree on, it utterly defies belief that he should start manufacturing fake ones with the same palm tree on, then jumble up the genuine tablets with the fake ones. The only credible explanation is that all of Mr Saida's tablets come from the same source and his lead tablets are just as fake as the copper one. Petecarney (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

'The "collapse of the story" section' - perhaps we need a better title for this section. My impression is that the heat has gone out of the story with that revelation. We don't want to express an opinion ourselves, of course. 77.86.27.161 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dubious" and "Disputed" tags

I've gone through the article and looked up each of the items marked as "dubious". A couple were dubious, and I deleted them; but the remainder were reported and I've added the reference and verbatim citation to each.

I'm not clear that anything in the article is now anything except a report of what someone has said. Since there are now no "dubious" tags, and as far as I know nothing in the article is factually in question, I have removed the "disputed" tag.

If anyone feels this is wrong, can we have details of what is in dispute? (For all I know there is still rubbish in there, of course) If something is dodgy, it should be removed. I think the article could still be improved quite a bit, tho. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job of tidying up the article. It is much better displayed as a timeline of statements. It looks like the article began as one simply reporting the some of the media statements, then someone else started adding detracting comments. Seeing as these comments are from blogs, we then had the 'can't use blogs in references' approach. I put the tags in to show that there were problems, so it's good to see you had time to do a rewrite. I'm sure there'll be a few more things to add in the week ahead. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see that it can sensibly be arranged, as it unrolls, in any other way. Once the story is dead, it might then be rewritten another way, I think. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

More reports on the "discovery"

These two new reports give more emerging details:

Is this the first ever portrait of Jesus? The incredible story of 70 ancient books hidden in a cave for nearly 2,000 years

Could this couple's Bible 'codices' tell the true story of Christ's life?

Fleckerl (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, both of these, and I think that material from both should be included in the article. The Daily Mail has interviewed the supposed owner and has some pix. The Telegraph has interviewed Elkington. Roger Pearse (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for categories 'Archaeological forgeries' and 'Hoaxes in Israel'

Concerning the need for reputable sources, the Telegraph reported that examinations by Israeli archaeological sources had shown them to be forgeries. The Jewish Chronicle reports the same conclusion, citing The Israel Antiquities Authority and Professor Andre Lemaire. Both are reputable publications where journalists have done their jobs instead of merely embelishing the Elkingtons' press release. These two references are themselves enough to put this article in the categories 'Archaeological forgeries' and 'Hoaxes in Israel'. The detailed debunkings by Peter Thonemann, the Oxford Ancient History Lecturer, are, as been pointed out, presented in blogs which as self-published works are necessarily to be treated with caution. However the PaleoJudaica blog authored as it is by James Davila, Professor of Early Jewish Studies at St Andrews University, must be considered more authoritive than most. Indeed the images speak for themselves and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it is actually these blogs rather than the tablets which are the elaborate hoax. The Elkingtons' press release predicts considerable academic debate about the collection’s authenticity but, on the contrary, there is no sign of any such debate at all. It's not a case of the Jury's still out. The Israel Antiquities Authority, Lemaire at the Sorbonne, Thonemann at Oxford, and Davilla at St Andrews have given a unanimous verdict - Fake. In the complete absense of any credible case for authenticity we have no choice other than to tag the article with the categories mentioned. Not to do so undermines our mission to supply reputably sourced information and panders to a fringe publishing industry which feeds off the credulous. Petecarney (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know ... we shouldn't express an opinion ourselves, I think? Roger Pearse (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the article should summarize the views of reliable sources, not the personal conclusions of Wikipedia editors. If the reliable sources conflict with one another, the article should reflect that. Categories can be difficult, because while the article text can be more nuanced about explaining who said what, categories are more black-or-white. Blogs, even from respected academics, are at best marginal sources. Categories like "forgery" carry negative implications about the living people who put forth this artifact, so I would be inclined to hold off on them until there is more about the debunking in other sources. That may take some time, but in the meantime the detail in the body of the article describes the skeptical take on it, and the article is in Category:Inscriptions of disputed origin. --RL0919 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. We don't need to make a decision on categories at the moment. About blogs ... I was thinking. Just imagine that we deleted all the material published on these about this find from the article? What would be left? Just stuff reporting the find as if genuine; and that would be horribly misleading. I think we need to be intelligent about how we get an article to be based on reliable sources, i.e. to be reliable itself. The reason why we tend to treat blogs as unreliable is that they can be, and because anyone can write one. There are crank and liar blogs out there. But on a news story such as this (or the Libya crisis), one happening right now, blogs, facebook, etc are how information is getting out. It might not be what we would use in a year's time; but right now they're part of the story. When the blogs are making the story, as sometimes happens, to exclude them is to make the Wikipedia article unreliable. When the blogs are doing the research, are interviewing the principals in the story and publishing their comments, and when the bloggers are long-term contributors to the web, and not merely anonymous nobodies, then I think we have to treat them as reliable sources for our purpose. The failure to recognise this special case is a failure in WP:RS, in my humble opinion.

Mind you, I do not think we should say "this is so" (or "not so") because a blogger says so (or anyone else, for that matter). I think we should say "blogger X says this is so." The former is an opinion; the latter a fact. Just my twopence-worth, of course. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If the bloggers are previously published experts in a relevant field (such as the archeology of the area/period), then they are acceptable for use in an article per the exception at WP:SELFPUBLISH. But there are limits on that; in particular, such sources should not be used for claims about living people, because self-published blogs have no editorial review to guard against libel. So it should be fine to use blogs for commentary about the artifact itself (assuming the bloggers are in fact previously published experts), we should not use them for commentary on the people who "discovered" or publicized the artifact, including any categories that imply hoaxing or fraud on their part. --RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this page has improved a great deal over the last day. If I may express a concern. The entirety of the email exchange between Elkington and Thonemann has been available online since March 31. An Islamicist named Daniel Peterson posted the entire thing in a related thread on an LDS discussion board on that date. I posted a portion on my blog, and by the end of the day several other blogs had linked to it. Jim Davila then emailed Dr. Thonemann for verification, who supplied it to Dr. Davila and to me on April 1. As far as I know, every subsequent mention of the email stems from those few posts. While I understand the value of highlighting a professor's judgment over that of a grad student, when the question is simply when the exchange was first posted online, independent of any judgment, I think accuracy is more important than the nature of the website that posted it, or the specialization of the person who posted it. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Daniel Peterson was the first to post the entirety of the exchange at the following link on March 31: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/53799-early-christian-books-on-lead-plates/page__view__findpost__p__1208992732. Maklelan (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A very important question indeed - thank you. I shall ask around and find out just WHO is the person who was corresponding with Thonemann, from whom everyone else copied. We need to reference the real source, I agree. 77.86.27.161 (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change, but it still reads April 1. Peterson's post at the discussion board took place on March 31. (I appreciate you tolerating a nit-picker.) Maklelan (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops.  Fixed. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Elkington and co -- question of authority

I have restored a sentence linking to queries about whether those involved hold professional qualifications as archaeologists etc. This is not some kind of snobbery -- I don't care --, but rather a response to some of the press coverage which has attributed all sorts of things to these people. Amateurs can make important discoveries -- remember Schliemann! -- but must not be represented as if they hold doctorates in archaeology or teaching posts at universities. Some of the coverage would have led most people to suppose the latter. There may well, of course, be a better way of saying all this in the article, and I certainly don't intend any offence or character assassination. Roger Pearse (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Making Elkington linkable -- unless we think he's notable, is it worth it? Roger Pearse (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Item by Shibli12

This paragraph was added by a contributor Shibli12, who sounds as if he has some first-hand knowledge. It was rightly removed under WP:RS but ... it's certainly interesting:

The Books were originally discovered by a Bedouin from Shibli Village. Whilst trading hay along the Jordanian /Israeli Border he had a chance meeting with a taxi driver. whom he later bought the codices from. He travelled quite freely with them first to Israel and later to Europe.

- Mr Elkington was paid by the Bedouins to assist with the research after they learnt that the symbols on the works may have some meaning. He was also paid to have them authenticated.During the year the books remained accessible to Mr Elkington and Mr Feather in their UK homes no steps were taken to return to the works to any authority.

- After research on the books proved inconclusive the Bedouins were handed back the books and returned home.

Roger Pearse (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias

I'm fairly sure wikipedia frowns on citing blogs and that likely goes double for Historians that have no degree. --Protostan (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It does, because they can be unreliable sources. But just imagine that we deleted all the material published on these about this find from the article? What would be left? Just stuff reporting the find as if genuine; and that would be horribly misleading, since the professional scholars are basically taking it apart. I think we need to be intelligent about how we get an article to be based on reliable sources, i.e. to be reliable itself. The reason why we tend to treat blogs as unreliable is that they can be, and because anyone can write one. There are crank and liar blogs out there. But on a news story such as this (or the Libya crisis), one happening right now, blogs, facebook, etc are how information is getting out. It might not be what we would use in a year's time; but right now they're part of the story. When the blogs are making the story, as sometimes happens, to exclude them is to make the Wikipedia article unreliable. When the blogs are doing the research, are interviewing the principals in the story and publishing their comments, and when the bloggers are long-term contributors to the web, and not merely anonymous nobodies, then I think we have to treat them as reliable sources for our purpose. The failure to recognise this special case is a failure in WP:RS, in my humble opinion.

Mind you, I do not think we should say "this is so" (or "not so") because a blogger says so (or anyone else, for that matter). I think we should say "blogger X says this is so." The former is an opinion; the latter a fact. Just my twopence-worth, of course.

Which "historians that have no degree" had you in mind? Roger Pearse (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking about that Robert Deutsch entry? (I was looking at that and thinking it probably wasn't WP:RS myself) Roger Pearse (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The tag was added by user Protostan on 6th April. But there has been no discussion from him, so we can resolve it. There was an update by him to the main article on 7th, indicating he would "talk next time", but nothing since. So I have tentatively removed the POV tag, therefore. If Protostan feels this is wrong, could we discuss it here? Roger Pearse (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

(I hope people don't mind, but I realised the following material is not about Protostan's statement (and tag) that the article is unreliable, but about the blogger question. I think we need that tag issue resolved. Hope this is OK. )Roger Pearse (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also possible that he meant Tom Verenna, whose own blog describes him as a sophomore in college. A degree per se isn't a requirement for meeting the WP:SELFPUBLISH guidelines, but a established expertise from prior third-party publications is, and his online CV shows a lot of "forthcoming" and a self-published book, which doesn't cut it. Therefore, I just cut the paragra--Roger Pearse (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)ph that is based on his blog. --RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

While I understand the formal argument, but the article is now itself unreliable in consequence. Both Margaret Barker and Philip Davies have made statements on that blog amending the views attributed to them. This article now does not mention this, and so misrepresents them. How can this be fixed? Roger Pearse (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can understand someone's hesitance towards putting up Verenna's blog if and when he makes a claim which is grounded in his credibility as a professional historian, which he clearly stated he was not. However, to give the media--who have no credibility at all and in fact have lost credibility due to this story--a stronger presence than his blog is beyond ignorant. Yes there is bias here, but it is not from Verenna. He clearly labeled himself as an amateur, even though he is a student. And I would note that, while there are books and papers 'forthcoming', he also list one 'in press' which is to be published academically (and the contributors are all scholars who have degrees). He also lists on his blog that he is heading up a listserv to discuss the codices and share information between scholars (like those already linked too in the article). Wiki editors need to pay more attention to the details and the information than whether or not they find the bearer of information credible. Opinions are quite irrelevant. If there is really a need to discuss the bias in the article, these posts should be included, not excluded for no other reason than 'the historian has no degree'. Neither do the journalists reporting on this story, so why not remove all those stories as well? Or is it that the editor who removed the section of text has a vendetta against Verenna alone? I do hope that is not the case, as it would severely damage the credibility of this site.Svt1411 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

First, a blogger claims that he got emails from Barker and Davies. They have not "made statements on that blog". If they put out statements in a reliable source (letters to the editor, blogs of their own, etc.), then we can incorporate those if appropriate. I looked at the situation with Barker in particular, and after a tweak to more accurately reflect a press account that mentions her, I don't see any obvious misrepresentation of her in the article. If she was "misquoted" somewhere, it isn't in this article because we don't quote her at all, and the brief description of her views in the article seems consistent with what she is claimed to have written in emails. Haven't looked at Davies yet but will try to get to that shortly.

Second, Varenna does not fail as a reliable source because he does not have a degree. That is a red herring. The problem is two-fold: 1) he is self-publishing on a blog with no editorial review, and 2) he has no prior established reputation as a published expert. A book "in press" is something that may be published in the future, not previously published work. Anyone can claim to have a book about anything "in press"; we don't therefore accept them as an expert. Journalists, on the other hand, are publishing under editorial supervision from news organizations. That does not mean their material is always correct, and for a subject such as this I would much prefer to be citing academic journal articles. But that doesn't mean I can substitute non-RS blogs just because I might like what they have to say. --RL0919 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, according to Wikipedia's policies. However I would argue that not including this information severely limits the usefulness of the article. As the number one searched site online, wiki should make every effort to incorporate information like this (i.e., that a media source falsely cited a scholar or tweaked their meaning in a way that made it more sensational). Especially in light of Philip Davies' comments (he did not say the codices were 'genuine'). Finally, Verenna's book is actually 'in press'. It is not a flippant claim, as you seem to suggest. One cursory check of his CV and you can clearly find the link which takes you to the publishers website (Equinox) which displays it as such. It would be pretty hard to preorder a book which is not 'in press', don't you think? And the introduction to this book is available online, published in an online academic 'journal'. Svt1411 (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The guideline against using blogs as sources exists for good reason. The exception for previously published experts is just that: an exception to allow in material from reputable sources who have proven themselves, not an invitation to use the posts of students who may be considered experts in the future, no mater how interesting or potentially useful their posts may be. If Davies or Barker put out their own blog posts (as Davies has on the Sheffield blog), then yes we can cite those. Ditto the blog post cited from William J. Hamblin, an established scholar. But not Tom Varenna or Dan McClellan, who have little or no track record as experts. You are welcome to ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you think I'm way off base here. --RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity ... do you actually think that Tom Verenna and Dan McLennan are lying here? That the material posted is not by the people concerned? Roger Pearse (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue boils down to (a) providing readers with information they need to weigh the evidence for themselves, and (b) giving credit to to those who deserve it. I've been watching this discussion for a few days and posted an edit a little while ago. My intention was to accomplish the goals just stated and, out of curiosity, to see what would happen. The information has been removed. Some of the editors of this entry have a strange set of criteria for deciding what to include. It seems to be more about the source of the information cited than the information itself. (Let me think about this. Can I think of another case where someone might be led to believe false statements are true on the basis of the fact that they come from a "reliable" or "credible" source? Wasn't there something reported by the BBC recently about some ancient codices, whatever those are? I think I ran across some stuff posted on a couple of professors' blogs, though, showing it's all bogus. I guess I shouldn't believe the evidence I see in front of me because it's posted to a blog and not some other place. We certainly wouldn't want scholars using media affording them access to instant communication with people around the world to dispel the falsities published by reliable news organizations owned by multi-national corporations whose share-holders profit whether the sensational "news" they report is true or not. This is Wikipedia, the people's encyclopedia, not some corporately owned propaganda machine . . . wait . . . I can get this right . . . ) The site referred to in my edit provides evidence that speaks for itself, as do others chalenged in this discussion. My 5 year old sister could have posted the information and it would not matter? Dismissing it on the basis of the supposed credibility of the source amounts to an ad hominem argument and is irrelevant in regard to the evidence it relates. Moreover, it fails to credit the one who discovered the evidence with his find. It would be like saying that we shouldn't include anything published by Martin Luther because he was not a trusted authority and used new-fangled technologies like the printing press to disseminate his ideas quickly to his audience. No, we better wait until the Pope weighs in and our local bishop lets us know if what Luther says is true or not. Heaven forbid we should think for ourselves. And, yes, this and my edit of the article are anonymous. If you think about it for a minute you might be able to figure out why. I'll give you a hint: it's not to hide my identity.CatBrother01 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, looking at the edit history, my impression is that your addition may have been reverted accidentally when Roger Pearse (talk · contribs) was reverting edits made just before yours. So your entire discourse may be irrelevant. Second, Wikipedia has a well-established policy about using reliable sources that meet certain criteria; this is not just a preference of some editors on this article. Blogs don't usually meet those criteria. Anyone can create a blog under any name and post all sorts of claims, including outright lies supported with fictional or doctored evidence. If we accepted any blog post as a source, our article on Barack Obama would say he is a Kenyan Muslim who sends out black helicopters to do the bidding of the Trilateral Commission. We accept blog posts as sources only when they meet relatively strict conditions, so that we don't have to argue in detail over every crazy claim posted by cranks and every propaganda piece posted by ideological zealots. If that incidentally keeps out some truthful posts by bloggers who lack established credentials, that's unfortunate, but the alternative is far worse.

Looking at what you tried to add, it appears that the blog in question may be from a professor of religious studies, and thus potentially acceptable under the "published expert" exemption, although the CV of person I think it might be doesn't have any publications on archaeology or ancient history, so that's probably arguable. Unfortunately I can't confirm who the blogger really is, because the professor that I think it might be doesn't have a link to the blog from his university profile. So for all we know the blog, which was literally started three days ago, could be from an impersonator with a hidden agenda. Which goes back to why we are very cautious about accepting blogs as sources. --RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely; brand new blogs could be by anyone, and the author has been carpet-bombing people writing about the subject. Hesitantly, I've now added it back in, but I'm not sure I'm right. I've softened the wording, tho. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have written and enquired and got back an email from a university adddress, so it seems that the blog IS by Dr Deitrich, and so passes WP:RS. Roger Pearse (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved to talk page

I've moved the following here as it doesn't seem to pass WP:RS. It's interesting but ... I don't think we can use it.

A Jewish Christian bibleblog provided a detailed analysis of the plate, said to possibly show the earliest depiction of Jesus, along side a sculpture of Roman deity Sol Invictus, the counterpart to Greek deity Helios. Using image filters on the likeness on the plate and of the sculpture a resemblance can be observed. Sol Invictus, and Greek deity Helios, were used as a representations for Jesus in religious art in the 4th century. The likeness appears to be inspired by the Roman artistic style. Early 3rd century religious art associated with Jesus depicted Jesus as a young Roman in Roman attire.

Roger Pearse (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this has happened a couple of times now, I wanted to point out that material that isn't acceptable for the article because it doesn't meet WP:RS normally shouldn't be placed on the Talk page either. The talk page if for discussing how to make the article better, not a place to discuss the subject in general and certainly not a dumping ground for rumors and misinformation. --RL0919 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you could point me to a policy in support of this? Roger Pearse (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that there is a policy forbidding it, just that we shouldn't be doing it most of the time. If we want a piece of material on the talk page to discuss improving it it to put it back in the article in the future, that's fine. But with two passages copied over in a short period of time, I wanted to make sure there wasn't some notion that major cuts from the article should routinely be placed here. I guess I wasn't clear enough about what I meant. --RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with you in principle. It would just clutter the talk page if done routinely. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Other news source ref

Hey, RL0919: you took out the ref for "other news sources" in the header which leaves it like an unreferenced claim. Would you care to add some better refs to it, then? I've stuck a fact tag on it in the meantime. Thanks. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that this needs a ref. It just summarizes what is evident in the body of the article. Do you actually mean to challenge the statement, or are you just tagging it because there used to be a ref there and now there isn't? Uncontroversial summary in a lead doesn't usually need to be cited. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I stuck a tag on it because I get nervous about general statements like that. But if we see it as a summary, I think it's OK. I'll take the tag off. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Blog sources review

Based on some of the discussion above, I wanted to present a more organized version of my take on which of the blog sources are or are not usable as reliable sources under the "established expert" exception. A bunch of the cited bloggers easily qualify:

• James R. Davila
• April DeConick
• William J. Hamblin
• Larry W. Hurtado
• Philip R. Davies, published through the Sheffield Biblical Studies blog. This probably wouldn't even be considered "self-published" since the blog is published by the department faculty rather than Davies personally.
• Robert Deutsch. Normally I would say he easily qualifies, but his reputation has been somewhat tarnished by forgery allegations related to the James Ossuary. As it turns out, the citation isn't to an actual blog of his, but to him being quoted by Jim West, another easy qualifier, so problem solved.

The following do not seem to qualify, and accordingly I've been removing material that is exclusively cited to them:

• Steve Caruso. Described on his blog as a "translator and artisan". His CV indicates that he may well know what he's talking about, but he is not an established expert with a record of previous publications.

Hehe, I don't generally get to comment on discussion of my own achievements like this. Admittedly my record has a lot of "hands on" experience, and not many publications. A number of people (when pressed, or when arguing a point) won't see me as an "expert" or "reliable" because of it. So is life. Academics who rely upon my work know better. ;-) In any case, I honestly do appreciate the rigor that is being put into citing fitting sources. The press was not nearly as thorough. אמר Steve Caruso 23:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Daniel McClellan. Grad student. CV indicates only one publication in an academic journal, and it was interview, not a paper. (Two other publications were in a student journal and a university newsletter.)
• Thomas Verenna. CV shows him to be very accomplished for an undergrad, with co-edited book coming soon, but that is not the same as being an established expert.

In a few years we might be citing McClellan and Varenna routinely. But not yet. --RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair and logical approach. I agree about Steve Caruso. The difficulty I feel with McLellan and Verenna -- who I agree cannot be authorities themselves -- is that they are making the running on the story. The people in the story are writing emails, which are appearing there. Material they post is being quoted by Jim Davila, for instance. I take your point entirely; but ... do you see why I worry? Roger Pearse (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If Davila quotes it, then we can use Davila as the source. Writing a Wikipedia article is very different from writing a magazine or journal article, where we would want to go back to the primary sources wherever possible, perhaps even interviewing Barker, etc., ourselves if we could. Here it is better to quote a secondary source. It is a bit like money laundering. --RL0919 (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about Verenna is largely academic. He has claimed repeatedly in the past to have been on the point of publishing multiple tomes. His only effort to date is a self-published vanity piece. His record is several years of claiming to be on the cusp of publishing multiple books through academic channels. To date, he has zero publications through academic or peer-reviewed journals.

As of yet, though, he is not a reliable source, and as has been pointed out, a blog with essentially hearsay reportage is not a valid source for an article such as this should strive to be. 87.64.44.214 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC) ~~ To be fair to Mr Verenna, I should point out that he at least has the appeance of being passionate about the field that he is studying, and it is quite possible that if pursues it as far as his passion seems to warrant, he may well in the future be cited as an authoritative source. In the meantime, he rigourously blocks opposing voices on his blog. I'm not speaking about "OMG, these codices prove Jesus existed" posts, but posts which specifically counsel caution about drawing conclusions before all of the relevant analysis is in. It ill behoves any of us to draw conclusions precipitately when there remains a good deal of analsis to be performed.

Unfortunately the clamour of the popular press creates a strength of perception which involves costly research and analysis - work that could be better done on better-sourced finds. The reality is that the community should stand back and wait for the results to come in. There's always the risk that if they're proven to be the real deal that the professional historians end up with with egg on their face - and, much worse - the accusation that they try to fit their conclusions to the evidence. This isn't necessary when time will expose what the real story with these things is.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.170.138 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

BBC Interview with Elkingtons

This BBC interview with David and Jennifer Elkington might shed some additional information: BBC Interview. Fleckerl (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

David Elkington

I'll start this post by introducing myself. My name is Robin Whitlock and at present I am a freelance writer, having graduated from Bath Spa University in 2008 straight into a recession. My main topic these days is environmental issues, and you can find some of my articles by looking at Ask The Experts and world.edu. I also write a blog entitled Energy & Environment. My first love though was ancient history and mythology, a subject which I have been interested in since childhood.

I was sitting in the living room of a friend of mine in Sherborne, Dorset, who unfortunately died some years ago. In walked Mr Elkington and we started to converse. I had just managed to get my first magazine article published in The Lady magazine at the time (this was around 1995) and Elkington, after having seen a copy I had brought with me and also having discovered I was interested in ancient history and mythology, invited me to participate on a project he was working on (and no it wasn't anything to do with codices). We basically agreed to write a book together on the Green Man. It was agreed, verbally, that we would be co-authors and that we would share any revenues from the book, status, appearances at conferences and so forth. Over fifteen years later and I am still waiting to Elkington to join me on this book, although having written a manuscript myself (which needs more work on it yet I am freely willing to admit) and having seen the controversy over the codices and also seen convincing remarks from various people on the Telegraph story comments page testifying as to the way in which Elkington has treated some people over the years, I am more inclined than ever to work on the book myself and try and get it published as my own project.

One time and David were standing on the platform of Thornford Halt, a small railway station in Dorset, and he started chatting about his dreams of wealth and fame. I quickly stated that my main intention was to establish myself as a writer and that I wasn't particularly bothered about money. He came back spouting some nonsense about "commissioning works of art...." and other such stuff about what he would do if he was rich.

Having seen Thonemann's comments about the codices, I do now believe them to be fake, but the recollection I've just shared above should tell you what you need to know. I would add that on several occasions during the years we were working together I had doubts about the authenticity of some of Elkington's findings. In my opinion, fame and fortune is his goal, and that, unfortunately, has the capacity to produce a less-than-careful approach to researching. That is all I have to say on this matter at present, I'll let you make of this what you wish.

Robin Whitlock Bristol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinwhitlock (talk • contribs) 08:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed Robin for this information about David Elkington.

After thinking about all this a bit, can I suggest we take the view that it doesn't matter what we think about David Elkington *personally*? I think that we just don't need to take a view, you see; just report what the stories are, and who says what. The WP:RS policy means that we should include a balanced selection of reliable sources, discussing the story of the discovery, the publication(s) of it, and the feedback in the media and online. It isn't for us to decide whether the codices are fake, whether David Elkington is right, or wrong, or has been duped by someone else. All we do is report (I suggest).

On the specific point: hey, I don't think we can hold it against a man that he wants to get rich! Good for him. A poor man must sell the days of his life to rich men in return for a pittance to buy bread. That's what most of us do. If I had $20m, I'd translate all the anicent Greek texts and give the translations away online. If I had $500k I'd stay home and do translation myself. Instead I must waste my days in an office. DE is right to try to avoid that. So should we all, IMHO. Roger Pearse (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not the wish to get rich that annoys me actually, it's where it begins to affect the quality of research and also, more importantly, the treatment meted out to other people in the attempt to get there. Fine, lets all get rich, but lets try and do it ethically ate least! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinwhitlock (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and you're quite right, of course. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the comment area doesn't need me any more.

Just don't forget we can only cite reputable sources and that doesn't include anything written in a blog or any first hand experience by an editor. --Protostan (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction: As has been noted above, we can of course include material from those rare blogs which are themselves reputable sources, for example Professor Davila's blog PaleoJudaica. Petecarney (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Jordan Department of Antiquities says they carbon date to circa AD 100

AMMAN 15th June 2011 - Preliminary lab results indicate that a collection of metal books unearthed in northern Jordan may indeed represent the earliest Christian texts ever discovered, according to experts. According to the Department of Antiquities (DoA), initial carbon tests to determine the authenticity of lead-sealed metal books billed as the greatest find in biblical archaeology since the Dead Sea scrolls have been “encouraging”. The tests, carried out at the Royal Scientific Society labs, indicate that the texts may date back to the early first century AD, at a time when Christians took refuge from persecution on the east bank of the Jordan River.

http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=38498

Question has to be asked - how can lead be "carbon dated".

86.141.16.215 (talk)

The codices were opened under laboratory conditions and the dust and other detritus from between the pages carbon dated. The individual codices were all sealed (so had not been tampered with) and only a few had been opened for scrutiny at the time of the tests. Each codex had an original seal that prevented the pages being opened, so when they were broken that was the first time the pages had been turned since the books were buried. In order to fake the carbon dating, dust and other organic particles of the Roman-era would have been needed to have been inserted between the individual pages of each codex without opening them.

In addition, the lead from which the pages were made has been subject to pitting and other blemishes over time due to impurities 'erupting' from within the Roman-era lead in a way that would be almost impossible to forge.

BTW, it is my understanding that the detractors claiming the codices 'fake' have not actually been able to examine the books, as the codices themselves are only being allowed distribution to a very limited number of specialists within the antiquities field, David Elkington being one of the few persons who has actually physically examined the codices, courtesy of the kind people at the Jordanian Department of Antiquities. For anyone who's interested there's an interview with Elkington by Ian Punnett about the codices on a well known US radio station available on YouTube for anyone who's willing to do a search.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

One does not need to physically examine the codices to see that they have pseudo-semantic -- read: no semantic content, and as far as their age goes, Dr. Peter Northover, one of the metallurgists who carried out initial tests stated that where they were not a recent production (as in the past few years) they were not ancient. He couldn't rule out a date of 100 years old which pegs them somewhere in the past century at the oldest. Certainly younger than 2000 years old. Funnily enough, that portion was cut from the typed out version of the metallurgical report Elkington pasted to his Facebook group, but was there, plain as day on the scanned copy. Just sayin'. :-) But I digress. Sign your comments, anonymous! :-) אמר Steve Caruso 14:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

References for assertion of "fakes

I think we need references for the "scholars". According to the first few lines, these plates are fakes, or so readers are entitled to beleive after reading the last word of the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.154.113 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Contents?

Maybe I'm just stupid, but why isn't there any information anywhere online about what the actual contents of the tablets is? Yes, I'm sure they're forgeries, but... I can't seem to figure out what they're even forgeries OF. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.7.39 (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Jordan Lead Codies Are real books need to be translated to be understandable by us,

Jordan Lead Codies Are real books need to be translated to be understandable by us, the thousands years gap make it hard to understand what is meant by these writing. I am sure non of you have seen any of these books, I do. The people who made these books worked hard to preserve their thoughts on hard lead pages. It is great idea and great job. a book may include different types of languages of that time, symbols and drawings. I hope Mr.David Elkington will be successful translating these books. It may change the minds of some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.11.190 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ion Beam Centre, Webb, etc

I can't find the press release, but I can tell that some of the reports aren't accurate. See [1] and [2]. In any case this is probably too early to add. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the presser of the Surrey study:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/mediacentre/press/2016/jordan-lead-codices-not-modern-forgeries Samoojas (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Samoojas (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Dated on the 6th, after the tabloids reported it. Interesting but we don't use press releases either. It's also a pretty odd press release. You'd expect just a statement of fact reporting their study, but the press release is clearly pushing a pov, making statements such as a quote saying unnamed studies have proven whatever, using Matthew Hood extensively and ridiculously trying to make him impressive with "Matthew Hood, BEng, MSc, CEng, FRINA, MAPM, CDipAF, MIET, RCNC, Ministry of Defence employee for over 20 years and Deputy Project Manager for the Future Royal Yacht" - really, how does all of this make him an expert on the codices? He co-wrote a book by the Elkingtons[3] - and note they couldn't find a proper publisher. The comments here on Sarah Book Publishing don't suggest they meet our criteria at WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, only the first paragraph seems to be professionally written, fully fact-based and not embellishments. Samoojas (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Samoojas (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent studies

Once again, we need to avoid using the media as sources. I see that the tabloid Daily Mail is used as a source[4] - it's a terrible source, and it's not surprising that it the page lists related articles which include one about UFOs. The Mail article has no proper sources, only a wanna-be archaeologist and his wife with no formal qualifications.[5] And why are we quoting the engineer Matthew Hood as though he's a reliable source? Hood is a co-author with Elkington of a dubiously published[6] book[7] - I see another co-author is a hypnotherapist.[8] In other words, we have no reliable sources for this, only 2nd or 3rd hand reports and unreliable sourcces. And it's now included in the lead as though it's 100% accurate. @Makeandtoss:, are you willing to revert yourself? I can go to RSN if you want to defend these sources. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You just literally quoted a forum. Anyway, there are a lot more information that was not from any of these co authors or from the Elkington's, i.e. the IBC. The Jordan Times is a reliable source and so is Yahoo. I am not going to revert myself, I removed the Daily Mail source. Since this is fairly recent, and the media hasn't picked up on it, the recentism tag is more than enough for the time being, up until more coverage of this comes up. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course I didn't quote a forum. I didn't actually quote anything, and the link isn't terrible relevant. No, the Jordan Times is not a reliable source for this. Nothing relying on Hood or Elkington is going to be a reliable source. My guess is they are regurgitating a press release. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You can remove the info in the article from Hood, the rest from the IBC will stay. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sigh, ok, RSN it is. This is not the way to write an article. The book I mention wouldn't meet our criteria, yet we are quoting Hood who has no credentials and fails WP:UNDUE. Why should I be pushed into making a revert? Where is there real evidence? See my post at RSN. Yes, there are claims of a press release, an email, etc. Where is something more direct than these claims? Doug Weller talk 16:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

and Christianity Today cites a Professor of Religion[9] as the source for the quote we are claiming is part of the Ion Beam Centre statement. It can't be both. It's either Ion Beam or, more likely, the Emeritus Professor. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Need to grab the bull by the horns

I have had this page on my watchlist for a while, and there seems to be a little of scratching around the edges without confronting the big issues. Are the codices a seismic historical discovery or a tawdry fake? It seems that the preponderance of stuff you read online leans towards the latter. But given that is the absolute core point of interest in the article it is critical that (a) we just start to address that directly, both in the opening paragraph and a dedicated section setting out the claims and counterclaims, and (b) we cite some WP:RS for the propositions. In this case, mainstream media comment is clearly not appropriate - what we need is links to primary sources, ie. the claims made by Elkington and his contemporaries, and the analysis provided by mainstream academic commentators. The article also seems to rather skate over that Elkington refuses to allow the codices to be forensically examined by outside academics, which seems pretty key. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)