Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

yet again Re: [ANE-2] Wikipedia and the sum of all knowledge

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    ... Wasn t this recently discussed on ANE-2? wikipedia is utterly useless. As Sam pointed out, anyone in the world can write an article on anything at all,
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Paul James Cowie wrote:

      > As an ardent wiki host, administrator and contributor - and as a 
      > passionate adovcate of freely-available, 'open source' publication 
      > (particularly for those projects that benefit from public funding) - 
      > I'd be very interested in hearing the opinion of other list-members 
      > on this and related topics,

      Wasn't this recently discussed on ANE-2?

      wikipedia is utterly useless. As Sam pointed out, anyone in the world
      can write an article on anything at all, whether they have any knowledge
      about it or not. Yet naive students -- and people as well -- now turn to
      it regularly as a reference of first resort, probably because it's so
      easy to access.

      They then quote snippets of wikipedia in newsgroups, and _not one_
      snippet of wikipedia that's been quoted on sci.lang (newsgroup for
      linguistics, which, incidentally, I first heard of on ANE List about ten
      years ago) has been factually accurate in full.

      And the problem is due, in even larger part, to the "open source"
      feature mentioned above: if some expert _does_ provide an article, it
      can then be royally messed up by someone with non-knowledge of the
      field. (It's not hard to do "JPDE" analysis and untangle the layers --
      but there are no labels on the layers saying this one is by an expert,
      and that one is by a crackpot or ignoramus.)

      This is most likely to happen with politically sensitive topics (is
      anything of interest to ANE-2 politically sensitive?), but not
      necessarily. My standard example is what was said to be an excellent
      article on serialism in music. Several years ago, it was mentioned on
      rec.music.classical that this article had indeed been messed up by
      people who had no idea what they were talking about, but hated
      Schoenberg. When I mentioned this on sci.lang recently, someone posted
      the "history" of that article, which showed that in just the past month
      -- some two years after the problem was first mentioned -- about once a
      week, there had been a flurry of changes to the article every half hour
      for two or three hours.

      The changes are, of course, anonymous, and who knows whether the
      available version at any moment was accurate or inaccurate; but that's
      the version that a random visitor would have happened to encounter --
      and how is the random naive student or person to know whether it's
      accurate or not?

      Thus it's not a question of "owning knowledge," it's a question of
      reliability.

      Oh, and don't cite me the study comparing the accuracy of wikipedia and
      Encyclopaedia Britannica in certain areas of hard science. Even if
      wikipedia were 100% accurate at some moment in time, it can be altered
      at any moment.
      --
      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
    • John Wall
      From: Peter T. Daniels ... Britannica have taken Nature to task over that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm All
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
        > Oh, and don't cite me the study comparing the accuracy of wikipedia and
        > Encyclopaedia Britannica in certain areas of hard science. Even if
        > wikipedia were 100% accurate at some moment in time, it can be altered
        > at any moment.

        Britannica have taken Nature to task over that:

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm

        All the best,

        John Wall
        Omni Oratio Nil Labor
      • Paul James Cowie
        Regarding Peter Daniel s comments regarding Wikipedia.... Peter is absolutely correct when he identifies reliability as a key issue with regard to Wikipedia.
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Regarding Peter Daniel's comments regarding Wikipedia....

          Peter is absolutely correct when he identifies reliability as a key
          issue with regard to Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia is not alone in
          this - most of the information currently available on the internet
          and a great many print publications bear the same burden.

          This is the reason behind the current push within the Wikimedia
          Foundation to promote the inclusion of reliable and scholarly
          citation of original research, as I mentioned briefly in my last post.

          Naturally, caveat lector also applies.... Naive and unquestioning
          readers of material freely and openly available always have and ever
          will use information in a less than appropriate fashion.... These
          problems can be assuaged by encouraging users of Wikipedia, for
          example, to examine not only the article itself, but also the article
          history and accompanying discussion pages.

          Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently
          here to stay.... We can either condemn them as useless and
          ridiculous, or contribute in a meaningful way to their improvement in
          documentation and standards.

          -----------------------

          Paul James Cowie
          BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

          London, England and Sydney, Australia

          Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
          Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel

          PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
          University, Sydney, Australia
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: ANE-2 In Response To: Paul James Cowie et al On: Wikipedia From: Bruce PAUL: Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently here to
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            To: ANE-2
            In Response To: Paul James Cowie et al
            On: Wikipedia
            From: Bruce

            PAUL: Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently
            here to stay.... We can either condemn them as useless and ridiculous, or
            contribute in a meaningful way to their improvement in
            documentation and standards.

            BRUCE: I think the bottom line, the unsolvable problem, is that the
            contributions to improvement are at any moment liable to be overridden by
            contributions in the other direction. There is no filter to keep the content
            moving in an upward direction. The collaborative aspect of the design is not
            unpromising, and I quite agree that expertise does not always come with
            degrees. The problem to me (as to others) is the open nature of the
            collaboration. Nobody is minding the store.

            Given that situation, that Wiki has no means of making the best use of what
            comes in the door, and as long as it obtains, I think the responsible course
            must be to disrecommend it to those without their own means of judging its
            content. That is, to be able to read it safely, you should be qualified to
            write it.

            It is very hard for a group, even a coherent and motivated group, to get the
            best out of itself without a central ganglion of decision. I once shocked a
            class in Chinese by collecting their translations of a long passage at the
            end of the first hour, and telling them, Your assignment for the second hour
            is to produce a single translation of this same passage, by collaborating
            among yourselves in any way you can agree on.

            The result was a single translation that avoided some of the worst mistakes
            of the individual versions, but also fell short of the best of those
            versions.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Research Professor of Chinese
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Peter T. Daniels
            ... Who s? ... Yet wikipedia has somehow come to be perceived as different. ... And what sanctions, exactly, can be imposed on those who don t? ... Which tell
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Paul James Cowie wrote:
              >
              > Regarding Peter Daniel's comments regarding Wikipedia....

              Who's?

              > Peter is absolutely correct when he identifies reliability as a key 
              > issue with regard to Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia is not alone in 
              > this - most of the information currently available on the internet 
              > and a great many print publications bear the same burden.

              Yet wikipedia has somehow come to be perceived as different.

              > This is the reason behind the current push within the Wikimedia 
              > Foundation to promote the inclusion of reliable and scholarly 
              > citation of original research, as I mentioned briefly in my last post.

              And what sanctions, exactly, can be imposed on those who don't?

              > Naturally, caveat lector also applies.... Naive and unquestioning 
              > readers of material freely and openly available always have and ever 
              > will use information in a less than appropriate fashion.... These 
              > problems can be assuaged by encouraging users of Wikipedia, for 
              > example, to examine not only the article itself, but also the article 
              > history and accompanying discussion pages.

              Which tell us _absolutely nothing_ about the reliability of the
              contributors.

              (Note that I do _not_ say "credentials.")

              > Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently 
              > here to stay.... We can either condemn them as useless and 
              > ridiculous, or contribute in a meaningful way to their improvement in 
              > documentation and standards.

              The former is a far better use of our time.

              Stephen Jay Gould didn't debate Creationists.
              --
              Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
            • Paul James Cowie
              ... Who s? (sic) Who is what? Whose comments? - Yours, Peter.... ... Well, yes, Wikipedia is increasingly being perceived by many worldwide as an
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On 2 Apr 2006, at 16:34, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

                > Paul James Cowie wrote:
                > >
                > > Regarding Peter Daniel's comments regarding Wikipedia....
                >
                > Who's?

                "Who's?" (sic) Who is what? Whose comments? - Yours, Peter....

                >
                > > Peter is absolutely correct when he identifies reliability as a key
                > > issue with regard to Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia is not alone in
                > > this - most of the information currently available on the internet
                > > and a great many print publications bear the same burden.
                >
                > Yet wikipedia has somehow come to be perceived as different.

                Well, yes, Wikipedia is increasingly being perceived by many
                worldwide as an _increasingly_ reliable means of freely and easily
                acquiring up-to-date information _at the start_ of various
                enquiries.... It _is_ different, again, as the non-static Wikipedia -
                whilst it _can_ be momentarily compromised, damaged and vandalised -
                can also be cumulatively discussed, debated and improved on demand.

                >
                > > This is the reason behind the current push within the Wikimedia
                > > Foundation to promote the inclusion of reliable and scholarly
                > > citation of original research, as I mentioned briefly in my last
                > post.
                >
                > And what sanctions, exactly, can be imposed on those who don't?

                What sanctions would you suggest?

                >
                > > Naturally, caveat lector also applies.... Naive and unquestioning
                > > readers of material freely and openly available always have and ever
                > > will use information in a less than appropriate fashion.... These
                > > problems can be assuaged by encouraging users of Wikipedia, for
                > > example, to examine not only the article itself, but also the
                > article
                > > history and accompanying discussion pages.
                >
                > Which tell us _absolutely nothing_ about the reliability of the
                > contributors.
                >
                > (Note that I do _not_ say "credentials.")

                Yes, well, I do understand the distinction between reliability and
                credentials.... That, I think, was the central point of one of my
                recent posts....

                As regards reliability, well, there are a number of things that can
                be done immediately to enhance the value of user contributions....
                Not all of these are always in common practice, unfortunately, but
                hope for the future is high....

                First of all, a far greater number of scholars and academics could
                get behind the project, making contributions within their specialist
                areas. Keeping an article on your "watchlist" allows you easily to
                monitor any negative changes.

                Secondly, as I have campaigned for repeatedly on this very list,
                users have the ability to supply more than just the bare essentials
                of a user name and email address on their profile pages. Details of
                personal interests, research and affiliations will definfitely help
                to enhance confidence.

                I'm sure that there are other, more profound means of enhancing
                reliability and confidence that could (and no doubt will) be employed
                as the project matures. Perhaps you or others on-list could suggest
                something in this regard? (A system of article / section ratings,
                perhaps, to be employed by an editorial committee within a particular
                area?)

                >
                > > Like it or not, Wikipedia and projects of its type are apparently
                > > here to stay.... We can either condemn them as useless and
                > > ridiculous, or contribute in a meaningful way to their
                > improvement in
                > > documentation and standards.
                >
                > The former is a far better use of our time.

                You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

                >
                > Stephen Jay Gould didn't debate Creationists.
                > --
                > Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...

                Please don't get me wrong. I don't believe Wikipedia to be the
                panacaea for all our information ills... and I am acutely aware of
                the project's various shortcomings. I am currently developing my own
                wiki for the documentation of my doctoral and other researches, a
                wiki in which I have deliberately restricted user contributions to
                myself alone, for all the reasons that you and others have outlined.

                On the other hand, for general encyclopaedic treatments at least, I
                am nonetheless an optimist regarding the collaborative contribution,
                collation and presentation of basic facts and concepts, framed within
                a neutral point of view and increasingly better referenced with
                scholarly and otherwise authoritative citation.

                Criticisms have been and will continue to be made - and mostly for
                all the right reasons. But criticisms can also be overcome with time,
                effort and good will; something, I believe, Wikipedia is currently
                demonstrating. Should the core of Wikipedia articles eventually
                approximate _at least_ the range, utility and reliability of the most
                recent edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica at any given time, that in
                itself will be a great achievement....

                Any other thoughts?

                -----------------------

                Paul James Cowie
                BA Hons (Sydney) GradDipEd MA (Macquarie) PhD in candidato

                London, England and Sydney, Australia

                Editor, http://www.ancientneareast.net/
                Area Supervisor, Tel Rehov Excavations, Israel

                PhD Candidate, Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, Macquarie
                University, Sydney, Australia
              • Graham Hagens
                For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and who may not yet have perused The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating (eds. Levy & Higham, Equinox,
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and who may
                  not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy & Higham,
                  Equinox, 2005):
                  Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a
                  compromise.
                  The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
                  the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower
                  end of the range.
                  Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which probably
                  didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.

                  Graham Hagems
                • driver40386
                  I m not so sure many scholars would have the time nor the inclination to devote to Wikipedia. One criteria I would endorse, one that does not limit every
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm not so sure many scholars would have the time nor the inclination
                    to devote to Wikipedia.
                    One criteria I would endorse, one that does not limit every
                    contributor to have a degree of some such, is that every definitive
                    statement submitted to Wikipedia on any given subject "requires" a
                    reference.

                    References can also be debated but at least the reader knows from
                    where the opinion has emanated and that it is not some product of the
                    imagination. The reader can also judge for themselves whether they
                    have come across a more viable or recent reference on the subject.

                    Provided even the lay-person has done his homework then his/her
                    contribution has some sound basis when supported by a scholarly reference.

                    Just two cents from the peanut gallery.
                    Jon Smyth
                    Toronto.


                    --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, Paul James Cowie <editor@...> wrote:

                    > As regards reliability, well, there are a number of things that can
                    > be done immediately to enhance the value of user contributions....
                    > Not all of these are always in common practice, unfortunately, but
                    > hope for the future is high....
                    >
                    > First of all, a far greater number of scholars and academics could
                    > get behind the project, making contributions within their specialist
                    > areas. Keeping an article on your "watchlist" allows you easily to
                    > monitor any negative changes.
                  • K L Noll
                    Graham wrote: Subject: Low Iron II chronology debate Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a compromise. The high
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Graham wrote:
                      Subject: Low Iron II chronology debate
                      Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have reached a compromise. The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower end of the range.
                      Graham Hagems


                      The compromise is nice, but the implications of the research represent something of a defeat form Mazar's side, nevertheless. Or do you not agree?

                      K. L. Noll
                      Religion Department
                      Brandon University
                      270- 18th Street
                      Brandon, Manitoba
                      R7A 6A9 Canada
                      (204) 727-9701

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Doug Petrovich
                      Graham and All, The high proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for the commencement of Iron IIA, while the low party will assume the
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Graham and All,

                        "The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
                        the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower
                        end of the range. Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition
                        which probably didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway."

                        In addition to K. Noll's penetrating question, I would like to add that I am
                        not so sure there is call for such celebration. I mean, even if Mazar has
                        not compromised his position, I do not know if we can refer to this 60-year
                        expansion as "a mere 60" years.

                        Sure, I can buy the idea of a transition that was not completely
                        simultaneous everywhere, but 60 years is a great deal of time for a period
                        to begin in some places but be halted in a time-warp in others. So please
                        don't count me among the celebrants!

                        Doug Petrovich
                        NBTS
                        Siberia, Russia
                      • Graham Hagens
                        ... the commencement ... range. ... something of a defeat ... Y know I would argue the opposite. Mazar has given up a measly 20 years (1000- 980) and retains
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 6, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          K L Noll wrote,Thursday April 06:

                          >>The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE range for
                          the commencement
                          >> of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the lower end of the
                          range.


                          >The compromise is nice, but the implications of the research represent
                          something of a defeat
                          >form Mazar's side, nevertheless. Or do you not agree?


                          Y'know I would argue the opposite. Mazar has given up a measly 20 years
                          (1000->980) and retains the core concept that the transition from
                          'Canaanite' to 'typical Iron IIA' culture (burnished red slip etc) took
                          place some time between mid-Davidic, and perhaps mid-Solomonic periods.
                          Finkelstein et al. appear to have made a more significant move from their
                          previous stand that this change was early-mid 9th century, to now being
                          immediately post-Solomonic. If one accepts that the transition probably
                          occurred somewhere within that range, the implication is that the United
                          Hebrew Monarchy did indeed have a measurable impact on the material culture
                          of the 10th century.

                          Graham Hagens
                        • siaxares
                          ... who may ... & Higham, ... reached a ... range for ... lower ... probably ... I must say, I don t quite understand this! That s because the actual graphic
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and
                            who may
                            > not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy
                            & Higham,
                            > Equinox, 2005):
                            > Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have
                            reached a
                            > compromise.
                            > The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE
                            range for
                            > the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the
                            lower
                            > end of the range.
                            > Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which
                            probably
                            > didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.
                            >
                            > Graham Hagems


                            I must say, I don't quite understand this! That's because the actual
                            graphic CHART showing the radiocarbon dating forms a very specific
                            POINT, like a pyramid aimed at a specific time just before 870BCE!!
                            It's not a RANGE but a very, very clear POINT!


                            http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%
                            20Analysis%20Tel%20Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf#search=%22rehov%
                            20radiocarbon%22

                            The actual graphic for level IV at Rehov is located above. If you
                            can't paste this, just Google "Rehov radiocarbon" and it will show up
                            under:

                            The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov


                            There is a definite PEAK pointing to 875-870BCE!

                            When the Assyrian Period is correctly redated by the 709BCE eclipse
                            (vs 763BCE, which does not occur in month 3!) then Shishak's invasion
                            gets downdated by 54 years from 925 to 871BCE; precisely where the
                            radiocarbon dating is pointing the most.

                            The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite accurately dated by
                            the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is associated with
                            the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo and Jezeel, it
                            proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these sites, both
                            destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way, was during the
                            reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and
                            Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists when making
                            comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2 Chron 12:1,6).

                            >
                            L. Wilson
                            Astrochronologist
                          • Tory Thorpe
                            ... Any destruction layer at Rehov linked to Sheshonq I (Shishak) without epigraphy is a plausible guess, not a proof. So you cannot use this argument as a way
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- siaxares <lars1950@...> wrote:

                              > The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite
                              > accurately dated by
                              > the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is
                              > associated with
                              > the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo
                              > and Jezeel, it
                              > proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these
                              > sites, both
                              > destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way,
                              > was during the
                              > reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership
                              > between Rehoboam and
                              > Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists
                              > when making
                              > comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2
                              > Chron 12:1,6).
                              >
                              > >
                              > L. Wilson
                              > Astrochronologist

                              Any destruction layer at Rehov linked to Sheshonq I
                              (Shishak) without epigraphy is a plausible guess, not
                              a proof. So you cannot use this argument as a way of
                              revising Israelite, Egyptian, and Assyrian dates all
                              in one shot. The 763 eclipse is a good match with
                              eponym chronicles B1 and B2, like it or not.

                              Tory Thorpe
                            • David Hall
                              To L. Wilson: What eclipse record are you referring to? Ptolemy was supposed to have recorded an eclipse from the records of Merodach-Baladan c. 719 according
                              Message 14 of 14 , Aug 17, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To L. Wilson:

                                What eclipse record are you referring to?

                                Ptolemy was supposed to have recorded an eclipse from the records of Merodach-Baladan c. 719 according to Evetts (1892); another from the time of Nabopolassar in the seventh century and another from the time of of Cyrus in the sixth century.

                                Sennacherib of Nineveh was supposed to have conquered Merodach-Baladan of Babylon c. 704 according to George Smith, I realize that these dates were decided more than a hundred years ago.

                                From, History of Sennacherib by George Smith (1878) based on his translations from the Bellino Cylinder, Cylinder B, fragments from Cylinders C & D, numerous bull inscriptions, Taylor Cylinder, and various epigraphs). See also Ancient History from the Monuments, Assyria from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Nineveh, George Smith, 1875.

                                More recently Joan Oates published Babylon in 1979 & 1986, and listed the regnal years of Merodach Baladan II as ruling twice, once from 721-710 and a second time during 703 not in conflict with dates published more than 100 years earlier cited above.

                                David Q. Hall
                                d.q.hall@...


                                siaxares <lars1950@...> wrote:
                                --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "Graham Hagens" <rgrhagens@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > For those interested in the Low Iron II chronological debate, and
                                who may
                                > not yet have perused "The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating" (eds. Levy
                                & Higham,
                                > Equinox, 2005):
                                > Mazar (and supporters)and Finkelstein (and friends) appear to have
                                reached a
                                > compromise.
                                > The 'high' proponents will take the upper end of the 980-920 BCE
                                range for
                                > the commencement of Iron IIA, while the 'low' party will assume the
                                lower
                                > end of the range.
                                > Which is just fine: a mere 60 year spread for a transition which
                                probably
                                > didn't occur simultaneously everywhere anyway.
                                >
                                > Graham Hagems

                                I must say, I don't quite understand this! That's because the actual
                                graphic CHART showing the radiocarbon dating forms a very specific
                                POINT, like a pyramid aimed at a specific time just before 870BCE!!
                                It's not a RANGE but a very, very clear POINT!

                                http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Chapter15%20Bayesian%
                                20Analysis%20Tel%20Rehov%20-%20Bruins%20et%20al.pdf#search=%22rehov%
                                20radiocarbon%22

                                The actual graphic for level IV at Rehov is located above. If you
                                can't paste this, just Google "Rehov radiocarbon" and it will show up
                                under:

                                The Groningen Radiocarbon Series from Tel Rehov

                                There is a definite PEAK pointing to 875-870BCE!

                                When the Assyrian Period is correctly redated by the 709BCE eclipse
                                (vs 763BCE, which does not occur in month 3!) then Shishak's invasion
                                gets downdated by 54 years from 925 to 871BCE; precisely where the
                                radiocarbon dating is pointing the most.

                                The result is, that Shishak's invasion is quite accurately dated by
                                the Rehov sample to 871BCE, and since this level is associated with
                                the palace level/destructive level for both Megiddo and Jezeel, it
                                proves that Solomon built the palaces at both these sites, both
                                destroyed by Shishak in 871BCE, which by the way, was during the
                                reign of Solomon during a 7-year co-rulership between Rehoboam and
                                Solomon, not recognized generally by archaeologists when making
                                comparisons with the Shishak inscription (compare 2 Chron 12:1,6).

                                >
                                L. Wilson
                                Astrochronologist






                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.