Talk:Exodus Decoded

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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 quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article may need an appropriate infobox template. Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian cinema task force

Contents 1 Limnic eruption 2 Needs a Criticism Section 3 Some real references? 4 Overly Critical 5 Dating 6 Jacobovici is listed as the producer

[edit] Limnic eruption

I'm not sure that the there is enough evidence to support a claim of limnic eruption. Furthermore, while volcanic activity has indirect causal relationship by providing the source of gas-rich water inflows, volcanic activity is not the direct cause of a limnic eruption. Limnically active lakes are noted for lack of direct lakebed volcanic activity. A different trigger like landslides into a lake, excessive rainfall into a lake is noted as a more likely trigger. Also, where are your references for this claim? Finally limnic eruptions are a lake feature, none of my research indicated that this was also a feature of delta. I am less than inclinced to believe that a delta water system could support the thermal layers required to allow gas build up needed for a L.E. Revmachine21 11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The documentary provides experts that seem to disagree with your findings. The article here isn't claiming they are true, it is relating what the documentary said. References are not needed for that because the article is about what the documentary stated. You may or may not have reason to personally believe the findings of the documentary are in error, but either way it is not really relevant to this page.--GenkiDama 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but that documentatary certainly sounds like complete bollocks. Reader beware! Revmachine21 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a Criticism Section

Jacobovici is obviously pressing a religious agenda, probably in an attempt to refute Israel Finkelstein's (and others) conclusion that there is no archeological evidence to support the myths in the Torah (and Joshua), including the Exodus.

Jacobovici's thesis is so full of holes, so speculative, and so archeologically and historically far fetched that it should be considered in the same vein as Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods. TimeDog 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that Bietak has already written a scathing criticism of this theory, and apparently Redford has denounced it as well. I own a copy of Bietak's article published in BAR, and I'll get ahold of it to begin writing somthing, however someone should look for Redford's comments as well. Thanatosimii 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a criticism section, and I have started one drawing on criticism of the documentary at Biblical Archaeology Society. I will leave it to someone else to mention the specific criticisms. --Skb8721 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is a good start, but I don't think the discussion on the message postings is becoming of the article. No matter how far-fetched Jacobovici's thesis is, it's best to stick to the scholarship. Anyone can claim to have trumped up credentials on a public forum.Imdugud 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some real references?

All the "references" for this article are links to the posts on the message board at historychannel.com, these are circular references.

Perhaps a valid critique, but I removed a "cite needed" tag inexplicably affixed to the word "detailed" before a weblink. We need a citation from outside that a link is detailed? Was this an error, or someone's attempt to make sure the article was tagged as having uncited material? 66.188.89.52 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I started this article. I also started one of many short-lived articles about the documentary Zeitgeist. My Zeitgeist article was deleted because all of the references circled back to the Zeitgeist official webpage. As noted above, this article does exactly the same thing... and yet, it is going strong. I don't want this article to get deleted, but I think that all of the same criticisms that led to the deletion of my Zeitgeist article could be lobbied against it. I can think of three possible reasons why this article is alive while Zeitgeist is dead: 1) Exodus: Decoded is an affirmation of Biblical ideas while Zeitgeist is very critical of religion. I would hate to think that the religious right asserts censoring control over Wikipedia, but its not impossible. 2) Exodus: Decoded was televised while Zeitgeist was web-released. I think Wikipedia's notability standards are surprisingly biased in favour of conventional, commercial media to the neglect of free, web-based content. The Exodus: Decoded talk page is not, of course, the appropriate place to rant about that. and, 3) The Exodus: Decoded merits deletion, but has fallen fortuitously through the cracks. I am not going to nominate my own article for deletion, but unless more reliable sources evidencing the notability of this documentary are found, perhaps someone should.142.167.185.83 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overly Critical

I feel like this article is being overly critical of this documentary.

207.118.9.58 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Agreed. The turquoise mine being used to dispute the accuracy is especially telling. The last sentence starts with "It has been noted...", with no regard to who notes it, or more importantly, why they find it to be that way. It also admits to the usage of the term El, but provides no explanation as to why it was found where it was, or why it was written in Pre-Hebrew Semitic writing.

The documentary may be completely false. I still find it to have better research and insight than those who dispute it.

~~I just made an effort to reduce the over-critical feel. I had to take out a lot of interesting critism that I happen to agree with because it is, uncited opinion. Still needs a lot of help, so be bold, neutrality lovers, be bold! 142.167.173.61 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

--I noticed that one criticism mentioned was about how the Bible describes walls of water and how it wasn't explained. However, the documentary does speak briefly of how there would be tsunamis that would recover the land bridge. I can see how most people would miss it, but it does explain the walls of water that are recorded in the Bible.

--I do agree that there are some previous facts and studies that weren't addressed in the documentary, but do keep in mind this WAS made for TV. There most likely wasn't time to address every little detail and fact. The documentary is 2 hours long just hitting and describing the main points of his thesis alone. I don't know if there is a paper or report published on his findings or not, but I'm sure it would be more informative and wouldn't have that distractingly abusive use of special effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.48.106 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dating

Someone should note that the dates given in the Torah and the Bible also suggest c. 1500 BC as the date for the Exodus, the same as Jacobovitch's conjecture.

Not necessarily.

According to the Ussher Chronology of the Bible, the Exodus took place at 1491 BC, close to Jacobvitch's conjecture. Even though the Ussher dates are not neccessarily scientific, someone should still make note of the similarity, since the modern view of Bible (and Torah) chronology is partially based on Ussher's calculations (at least according to the Bible chronology article).

I saw the documentary and i agree with his findings.

The documentary is full of embellishments and lies, and purposely avoids much evidence against the thesis.

[edit] Jacobovici is listed as the producer

I noticed that Jacobovici is actually listed as the producer but the article states that it's his research (how many producers do you know with archaeological skills?). There may be more to the story in terms of evidence despite the obvious religious bent.

This is clearly a criticism article, not a description page of the documentary. Which is bad for the credibility of this article, as anyone can see. The whole article could be a "criticism section" of a new and more complete article. I would tell to anyone who would like to edit it: be impartial.