Talk:Cyrus H. Gordon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject United States (Rated Start-Class) United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-Class) Archaeology Portal This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Comments 2 Appeal to Consensus 3 Bibliography 4 Mainfort & Kwas

[edit] Comments

i'm surprised that this entry doesn't discuss that his theory on the semitic origins of Minoan culture and in particular regarding Linear A as a semitic language is widely discredited by the scholarly community due to faulty methodology. See relevant Wikipedia entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eteocretan ^^^^pktsourk

[edit] Appeal to Consensus

I removed this sentence:

The authenticity of the Bat Creek Stone as a Hebrew artifact is rejected by virtually all archaeologists, and the Paraiba stone probably never existed.

Here we have Cyrus Gordon, archaeologist of archaeologists, a man who worked side-by-side with Flinders Petrie, Leonard Woolley, and W. F. Albright. This is the man who deciphered both Ugaritic and Linear A. But his translation of the bat creek stone is "rejected by virtually all archaeologists". In order to achieve NPOV, criticisms must also be sourced. "Everybody knows that ain't true" is not a valid citation. Cadwallader (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded it and added some references. You may not like my rewording of the bit about rejection by archaeologists. I've also added a bit that says that Gordon acknowledged that forgery was a possibility, as it seems unfair not to mention that.Doug Weller (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If fairness is the goal, I suggest naming and citing an archaeologist who has rejected the stone, rather than appealing to a consensus of un-named archaeologists who have supposedly rejected the authenticity of the stone.Cadwallader (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The article now just looks silly and shows a lack of understanding of archaeology and the importance of context. It would have been easy for you to fix it instead of messing it up.Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll delete it until you can provide names and citations of archaeologists who examined the stone and published their rejections of its authenticity. I'm sure there are some. Do your homework.Cadwallader (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Better yet, I'll do a little homework for you.Cadwallader (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are already in the article. No homework necessary, you just had to read the references.Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Having found some critical sources for you, and placed them in the article, I now have to ask whether they are sufficiently relevant to include them here. The reason is that any controversial viewpoint expressed by anyone must have critics or it would not be controversial. Two of the three sites listed (Bat Creek, and Las Lunas) have their own Wikipedia entries. The argument by a certain academician that an artifact or inscription is fraudulent seems best placed on the wiki page of the artifact or site in question. In other words, it is rather POV to go to great length to shoot down Dr. Gordon's hypothesis. You care too much. It seems you cannot bear the thought that someone, somewhere might actually believe Dr. Gordon. That places you in the position of an advocate of a particular point of view. It's like saying, "Dr. Gordon stated the controversial opinion that X is Y. But Joe Smith proved that's not true." NPOV would require us to say something more like, "However, Dr. Joe Smith has argued against the authenticity of these inscriptions."Cadwallader (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, you can't argue that here and then on the Barry Fell page go to such an effort to prove him right. NPOV means all significant positions on an issue.Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one that found and inserted the quotes critical of Fell in that article in order to make it a balanced and NPOV reading, so yes I can argue that here. For that matter, I did the same in this article. You're the one with a clear and obvious unwillingness to let any other side be heard.

There is a major difference between Fell and Gordon, though both were diffusionists. Barry Fell's venture out of his formal field into epigraphy, combined with his over-confidence in his position led to his reputation being seriously damaged. So discussing arguments about one or two examples of his contested work are relevant to his reputation.

By contrast, Cyrus Gordon was a star in his field, and his field was ancient languages and scripts. He was undeniably brilliant. So even though Cyrus Gordon published similar diffusionist conclusions to those of Fell, (both before and after Fell's books), his reputation was untouchable. So "we" just pretend he never wrote it, and if some fool dares mention it, we immediately follow up with "but that's been disproved". Note that in this article, you haven't inserted criticism of Gordon's theories on Ugaritic or Linear A, even though such criticism was undoubtedly published. You only inserted criticism for the one point that Gordon promoted that strongly offends you. You are playing gate keeper, and pretending neutrality. I've called your bluff.Cadwallader (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

There should be a list here of books and paper published by Gordon. Cadwallader (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've added one.Doug Weller (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mainfort & Kwas

Their work has been in the article for some time. You are claiming to have read the 2004 article. How did you manage to do that? Or have you actually just read what someone else says they said and decided that was enough to represent their position? Why ignore the entire content of the two earlier articles? I've rectified that. But I think it is important to read the actual article, not what other people say the article said. If I'm wrong about this and you have read the article, apologies. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your addition was truly elucidating. I had imagined they drew their conclusions over a pint at the pub without even looking at the stone, it's archaeological context, or the other artifacts. However, given that the site itself cannot even be located now, I'm quite curious what context they considered? 7 skeletons, some bronze alloy wristbands, and a stone in an old crate. It's almost an unprovenanced artifact, isn't it?Cadwallader (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I presume the question was rhetorical as you've answered it. Better than a stone that doesn't exist, though. You haven't answered my question, have you read their article in American Antiquity?

Yes, I have read it, on your website of all places, and I particularly enjoyed the quote from Reverend Stephen D. Peet at the end. Since you have several articles by Mainfort & Kwas on your website, why didn't you provide the references here? At any rate, whether the Bat Creek Stone is genuine or a hoax, Cyrus Gordon endorsed diffusionist ideas - his own ideas. He was certainly a man with the training and expertise to draw his own conclusions and defend them. The fact that this article spends as many words trying to refute his ideas as it does telling what they were, seems a bit out of balance for a biography.

Unrelated - you might want to correct your paper on the Newport Tower, as you have in the second to last paragraph, Mr. Plowden surviving until 1859, two centuries after his aborted attempt to claim his lands...Cadwallader (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand - the references have been in the Gordon article for some time. It seems as though both Fell and Gordon are better known for their errors than their successes. Thanks for the comment on my paper, it was probably a typo at the magazine when it was published and I haven't really read it carefully since. I'll get that changed.Doug Weller (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. You inserted a citation to M & K on the Bat Creek Stone about a month ago, but didn't mention their work or its significance in the article at that time.Cadwallader (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)