LadyofShalott (talk | contribs) →Joseph and Imhotep: try expanding Ron Wyatt |
Peterkingiron (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
Joe also asked for a copy of the blood report, but didn't get one. No one has seen it. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 05:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) |
Joe also asked for a copy of the blood report, but didn't get one. No one has seen it. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 05:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
===Reply=== |
|||
This is response to a long message on my talk page: |
|||
* Do not alter what other people have said on talk pages. This is putting your words into their mouths. Similarly, so not alter what other people have written in discussing Artilces for discussion. |
|||
* You have chosen a highly controversial subject for your first article. This was unwise. My first encounter with WP conmcered an article on the [[River Teme]], where some one was propounding a theory for which he had no evidence, only imcorronprated theories. If you look at the earliest part of the history of that article, and the archive on my talk page, you will see what happened. I had to defer posting my view until I had published it elsewhere (in J. Railway and Canal Hist. Soc.). This generated correspondence in that journal, and a competing editor kept trying to put his view back in. I had consisderable help from an ADMIN who was monitoring (and moderating) what was going on. At one point I had to entered into correspondence with a producer at the BBC, because the other editor was citing their website as an authority: they had evidently been fed the same false story. That was all several years ago, when WP was a much less well developed encyclopaedia and had a poor (and perhaps underserved) reputation for reliability. |
|||
* In a world where many people (unlike you and me) are not Christian believers, it is not entirely surprising that they do not regard the Bible as a reliable source. If they did, they would not be unbelievers. Theri attitude is "The Bible is a religious book; I believe in religion is rubbish; therefore the Bible is rubbish". However, that is not a proper sylogism, and the second premise anyway involves their [[WP:POV]], and we are as much entitled to our POV as them, provided the result is an article shoing a [[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]]. That is sometimes best done by ensuring that both sides of the argumetn are fairly set out. |
|||
*Accordingly, the Bible as a source needs to be approached on the same basis as any other historical work from the ancient world. It can be treated (in my view) as a reliable source in so far as it is dealing with history. That certainly means events from the time of David onwards. For earlier periods there is a difficulty: secular archaeology has failed to find evidence for the change in culture that would be expected if the old Canaanite population had been replaced by a new Israelite one. The fallen walls of Jericho were once said to be evidence of the Israelite conquest; then some one revised the chronology and they did not match; now some one else is suggesting a further revision that (I understand) does match. This is a controversial subject. It partly depsnds on what date one thinks that the Exodus took place. The Isaelite sojourn in Egypt is even more difficult. It is possible that it coincides with the [[Hyksos]] period, which is poorly documented, but (accoridngly to conventional chronology) that is too early. Nevertheless, it is long after Imhotep's time. |
|||
*I would recommend you not to bring forward your article again, even with full in-line citations. Only if you can find a reputable academic source, would I even suggest that you think of it. I would suggest that you develop it initially in a [[WP:sandbox]] (within your user pages - a place where people will not usually make changes unless invited to). |
|||
*In the meantime, I would suggest that you spend time going through articles in WP, looking for errors and articles lacking detail, the shortest being classified as "stubs". This will give you experience in editing before you bring forward controversial views. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Keep Working == |
== Keep Working == |
Revision as of 14:07, 30 April 2009
October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Premillennialism has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
Your recent edits
Hi -- you'll notice I've reverted your edits. You need to read up on our policies and guidelines to see why. Start with WP:RS - I'm afraid Wyatt is not a reliable source in Wikiedia terms, and although you can use the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, going beyond that is fraught with problems. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- He has a point. Several recent developments in history, psychology, sociology, etc., have called into serious question the factual accuracy of much of the Jewish Bible/Christian Old Testament. So seriously, in fact, that, speaking as someone with an academic background in religious history, much of that material is not counted as historically reliable, the Pentateuch in particular. On that basis, we can't really put forward possible linkages between Biblical characters and historical characters in our main articles on those people, because unless there are very strong evidences that they are considered reasonable by the academic community, they tend to carry little weight. Such proposed changes as you sought to make would probably also count as falling under WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, and such content as that isn't considered acceptable either. This is not saying that there could not be separate articles on these subjects if they are notable enough as per WP:NOTABILITY and there is enough content to be added to them from reliable sources as per WP:RS to justify a separate article. But that is as a separate article, not as material to be included in the main one. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
AfD of Joseph and Imhotep
There is a discussion about whether or not to delete that article which you created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep. You are welcome to comment there. If you want to argue for keeping the article, that is the page where you should do so. LadyofShalott 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, was this originally written as an academic paper before it was added to Wikipedia? It uses a lot of formal expository writing techniques. I found the article interesting, but I'll admit I think it falls firmly under rules barring original research. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've noticed that you've added a long reasoning to the deletion discussion. Just a point of advice, but people don't tend to read a long spiel of information. All the deletion discussion is doing is deciding whether there is enough notability for a subject and that there are reasonable reliable sources about the subject matter. I strongly suggest that you read these guidelines, so that you have a better idea what is required. All you need to do to avoid deletion is to demonstrate that the article can meet the above. If the sources are available you should be able to do this fairly succinctly. Quantpole (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the text, essentially per Quantpole. If you want to leave a rationale, fine, but 1) make it shorter and 2) base it on actual Wikipedia policies, not what goes on inside your head. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note that sources need to be not only reliable and verifiable according to our criteria, they have to discuss the concept that Joseph and Imhotep are the same person. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the text, essentially per Quantpole. If you want to leave a rationale, fine, but 1) make it shorter and 2) base it on actual Wikipedia policies, not what goes on inside your head. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It comes down to comparison of credentials / achievements etc vs guestimates of dates. The discussion will be profitable.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- But we are trying to say that it doesn't, it comes down to our poliies and guidelines, and reliable and verifiable sources discussing the issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a strict policy on no original research. Making that comparison is original research unless you can find reliable, independant sources that claim the two men were actually the same. No ancient accounts of either Imhotep or Joseph claim they were the same person, so they do not help. Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep, you will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm backing that up. You absolutely must not remove or refactor the comments of others. Do not do it again. Argue with the comments; say why they are incorrect or why you disagree with them, but you may not remove them. LadyofShalott 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Does this apply to articles or discussions because some of my comments have been removed or modified or reverted by others in both articles and discussions.
also how can an article be tidied up or improved without altering the comments of others?
I need to have this clarified so that I do not breach the rules or upset you again.
--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Sir, your recent comments on the page in question will be more likely to have people think ill of you than enhance your cause in any way. I would urge you to cease making such comments. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that.
Can you please justify why the Bible cannot be used as a source of information about characters mentioned there in and why it cannot be crossreferenced with other manuscripts and artifacts such as egyptian heiroglypics who may be referring to a character in the Bible. Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events.
When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?
When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.
For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.
--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Your article
I would have liked to be able to extract something useful from your article, but I fear that this is impossible. WP is an encyclopedia, not a home for fringe theories. These will tend to be classified as original research. It is possible within WP to bring forward original ideas, but they need to have in-line citations of reliable sources. WP needs all the editors that it can get, who will undertake constructive work on the encyclopaedia. In dealing with Biblical subjects, you need to ensure that what you write will stand up to criticism from skeptics, and I am afraid that your theory is so offbeat that there is no hope of it doing so. I would suggest that you avoid pious language, which is likely to be like a red rag to a bull. Do not amend what other people have written on talk pages (including Articles for Deletion pages), save possibly to correct minor errors of syntax. Your article was essentially a historical one; this means that the Bible must be treated only as a historical source book, not one that carries the authority of divine inspiration. I write this as an evangelical Christian, who believes in the Bible, though it is difficult to correlate the early parts of it with secular history. This applies particularly to Genesis, whose chronology certainly presents difficulties. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- The blood thing is nonsense, which may be why at least one of his past associates was telling people not to talk about it. You should know that there is no evidence of a report on it. There isn't even archaeological evidence of an Exodus, and Genesis was written centuries after it supposdly happened, so to talk about where it was is pointless. 81.105.226.60 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- As for the Ark of the Covenant, where do you get the idea that the Israelis claim to have it? I know the Ethiopians claim to have it. And what evidence is there for a new permit? I note that the Wyatt site says that "The excavations of 2005 and 2006 at the Garden Tomb, in Jerusalem, did not completely confirm the findings as stated by the late Ronald E. Wyatt during his periods of excavation during the years 1979 to 1989. We no longer have the personal account of Ronald Wyatt to help guide us. For these reasons, until further research, the Ark of the Covenant materials presented by Wyatt Archaeological Research prior to 2005 have been removed from circulation." By Calvary I presume you mean 'Gordon's Calvary', one of 4 sites claimed to be Calvary.
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:13:12 +0300 (IDT)
From: jo@israntique.org.il
To: jsearcy@connecti.org.il
Cc: Harriet@israntique.org.il
Subject: Re: Ron Wyatt
Dear Mr. Searcy
Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. We are aware of his claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they ever been published in a professional journal. They fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc. It's amazing that anyone would believe them. Furthermore, he has been thoroughly discredited by various Christian organizations such as Creation Research in Calif. For the latest on his "discoveries" I suggest going into the WWW (use Vista) someone called Tentmaker decided to do an expose of his various claims. Here you will find the truth, which is more amazing that his (RW) fictions.
Shalom
Joe Zias
Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology
Israel Antiquities Authority
POB 586, Jerusalem
Joe also asked for a copy of the blood report, but didn't get one. No one has seen it. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply
This is response to a long message on my talk page:
- Do not alter what other people have said on talk pages. This is putting your words into their mouths. Similarly, so not alter what other people have written in discussing Artilces for discussion.
- You have chosen a highly controversial subject for your first article. This was unwise. My first encounter with WP conmcered an article on the River Teme, where some one was propounding a theory for which he had no evidence, only imcorronprated theories. If you look at the earliest part of the history of that article, and the archive on my talk page, you will see what happened. I had to defer posting my view until I had published it elsewhere (in J. Railway and Canal Hist. Soc.). This generated correspondence in that journal, and a competing editor kept trying to put his view back in. I had consisderable help from an ADMIN who was monitoring (and moderating) what was going on. At one point I had to entered into correspondence with a producer at the BBC, because the other editor was citing their website as an authority: they had evidently been fed the same false story. That was all several years ago, when WP was a much less well developed encyclopaedia and had a poor (and perhaps underserved) reputation for reliability.
- In a world where many people (unlike you and me) are not Christian believers, it is not entirely surprising that they do not regard the Bible as a reliable source. If they did, they would not be unbelievers. Theri attitude is "The Bible is a religious book; I believe in religion is rubbish; therefore the Bible is rubbish". However, that is not a proper sylogism, and the second premise anyway involves their WP:POV, and we are as much entitled to our POV as them, provided the result is an article shoing a Neutral point of view. That is sometimes best done by ensuring that both sides of the argumetn are fairly set out.
- Accordingly, the Bible as a source needs to be approached on the same basis as any other historical work from the ancient world. It can be treated (in my view) as a reliable source in so far as it is dealing with history. That certainly means events from the time of David onwards. For earlier periods there is a difficulty: secular archaeology has failed to find evidence for the change in culture that would be expected if the old Canaanite population had been replaced by a new Israelite one. The fallen walls of Jericho were once said to be evidence of the Israelite conquest; then some one revised the chronology and they did not match; now some one else is suggesting a further revision that (I understand) does match. This is a controversial subject. It partly depsnds on what date one thinks that the Exodus took place. The Isaelite sojourn in Egypt is even more difficult. It is possible that it coincides with the Hyksos period, which is poorly documented, but (accoridngly to conventional chronology) that is too early. Nevertheless, it is long after Imhotep's time.
- I would recommend you not to bring forward your article again, even with full in-line citations. Only if you can find a reputable academic source, would I even suggest that you think of it. I would suggest that you develop it initially in a WP:sandbox (within your user pages - a place where people will not usually make changes unless invited to).
- In the meantime, I would suggest that you spend time going through articles in WP, looking for errors and articles lacking detail, the shortest being classified as "stubs". This will give you experience in editing before you bring forward controversial views. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Working
Drnhawkins, at this point consensus is leaning toward the deletion of your article. Please do not take this personally. My advice would be to spend some more time editing and learning your way around wikipedia and its policies before attempting to start any more new articles. We are always looking for quality editors ... sometimes it just takes a little while to learn the ropes. Athanasius1 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Trust me, sir, there are a lot of articles we already have that are in less than impressive shape. Most of the articles on in the individual books of the Bible would be included in that number. I say that with some awareness of the religious content here because I am currently, somehow, don't ask me how it happened, the lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProject. We would be more than happy to welcome your help to most of the content we already have. There are several particular functions within the project, including review, assessment, and others, which can use additional workers. We also have a short list of the comparative quality and priority of most of our articles at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Christianity articles by quality statistics. You might be able to find some topics in the various listings there which interest you. If you should ever want any assistance in working on any of these articles, please drop me a message on my talk page or e-mail me and I'll do what I can. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Joseph and Imhotep
Your comments and responses from me, intended afterwards.
Sorry about that.
I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.
Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.
Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)
- It may not be necessary to quote the Bible, actually. One other alternative is to provide a link to an external site which does quote the Bible. I don't have a ready example of such in front of me, but it is done in several articles. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.
When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?
- If you mean the comments on the talk pages, only if the comments clearly violate policy. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first!
Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.
When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.
- Basically, the best source for that is WP:VANDALISM. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd need to see the details there to be able to make any reasonable statements. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- However, it does call into question the reliability of his conclusions. For a source to be counted as reliable, it has to be on, basically, which is relied on by other similar "respectable" sources. If the source does not meet the standards on this page, WP:RS, it isn't counted as reliable. There is also the additional matter of fringe sources, as per WP:FRINGE. They are a bit harder to deal with, because that becomes more a matter of how much weight to give the content. Also, unfortunately, particularly regarding material relating to religion, there are a lot of comparatively unconfirmed assertions, and they have to be dealt with with great care. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?
- A separate article should have at least two separate reliable sources which give substantial content to it. I'm not sure if this one does, because I've forgotten. In any event, it might make more sense to try to add it to another article first, and then develop it there until it grows large enough to be a separate article.
--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC
- One, it is not our place to "offer candidates" for being someone. We only repeat what reliable sources say, and if they don't say anything, neither do we. And a fringe theory is any theory which has not met with substantial credibility from the appropriate academic field. I haven't seen any clear evidence that this theory is widely accepted. If it isn't, then by the definition of the term it is a "fringe theory". Secondly, specifically regarding Joseph and the presence of the Jews in Egypt at all, I have seen several academic sources which seriously question whether that had any basis in fact at all. Some of them contend that the Jews were, effectively, making themselves look better to their neighbors by creating an impressive "family tree". I myself don't have a clear opinion one way or the other, but do note that I have never seen any particularly clear nonbiblical evidence that the Jews ever were in Egypt. If they weren't, as that theory contends, then the story of Joseph could have been made up entirely or perhaps altered from some other extant story. Third, regarding Ron(n) Wyatt. We do not count sources per se based on the reliability of the source in other matters, but in the source's specific reliability regarding the subject in question. Mircea Eliade is counted one of the most reliable figures in the history of religion field, and his work there does count as extremely reliable. His political statements do not fall within the same field, and are not considered reliable. If the relevant academic community hasn't effectively given the work or author a general endorsement, then his work isn't quite up to the level of "reliability". Based on your own statements above regarding Wyatt, at this point he is not seen as a particularly reliable source within the field, for whatever reason. Lastly, in wikipedia, we do not propose hypotheses. Our fundamental purpose is to repeat what other reliable sources have said regarding a subject, and that's about it. If you are seeking to include the article on the basis of it being a hypothesis, this probably isn't the best place to start. Regarding Wyatt's works, however, it is certainly possible that if any of his books has been significantly discussed in at least two reliable sources, then a separate article on that book would certainly be possible. To stand a good chance of being retained, it would have to give a comparatively large amount of space to what the sources discussing it said about it, but that's standard and shouldn't be much of a problem. I hope that helps a little. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- John has already given you a pretty thorough response to the questions you also posed on my talk page. I will add that we have an article about Ron Wyatt. It is quite brief, and if you have reliable sources that discuss his work, that could be a good article for you to expand. LadyofShalott 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)