This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PatrickDunfordNZ (talk | contribs) at 06:22, 22 May 2010 ({{POV}} added to main article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:22, 22 May 2010 by PatrickDunfordNZ (talk | contribs) ({{POV}} added to main article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Bob Cornuke? Robert Cornuke?
Why does an article of Bob Cornuke talks about Robert Cornuke? Are they the same person?
If so, an explanation is needed to clear things up for readers?--Wai Wai (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Edits to the introduction
I shortened the first two paragraphs of introduction without actually removing any information - words have ben removed, but not the sense they convey. I deleted entirely the third paragraph, as it sems to me not to convey any real information - it's Cornuke's views on the way he works - but if anyone thinks it's important I suggest putting it in as a section in its own right in the body of the article. I also changed "Bob" to "Cornuke", as being more formal and more appropriate to an encyclopedia. PiCo 07:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverting
I just reverted a bunch of additions because of the unencylopedic tone, WP:OR, and the undue weight policy concerning science. For example, I removed, "He uses the skills he developed as a crime scene investigator to study Biblical..." Stuff like that is POV until this is validate by a community of archaeologists. Other claims like "LBU was founded in 1973 and every course is designed to meet or exceed national norms..." are clearly POV. It may be true or it may be false. Without a source or any implication of what this means about Cornuke's unaccredited credentials in the academic community it has no place in the article. Most distrubing is the treatment of trying to ignore the criticism. Such as "Franz’ 'claim' is a misquote from Cornuke’s In Search of the Mountain of God book..." is WP:OR and should be removed immediately. The same goes for "What Franz chooses ignore are the documented statements of Frank Moore Cross..." which is also WP:OR.
If you wish to refute someone or prove that these are Biblical ruins you must do it first in a peer reviewed journal. C56C 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- No reply, just a revert. I'm not suprised. C56C 05:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Then edit the text to remove material that you believe violates policy, DO NOT REMOVE CITED VALID ADDITIONS TO THE ARTICLE AS THAT VIOLATES[REDACTED] POLICY. --SYITS 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- SYITS, you've been warned about this. Do not add in WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Being a former police officer does not imply training in archeology, and[REDACTED] will not make that connection either. You appear to be a WP:SPA. Do not do a wholesale revert again. Present each change here on the talk, and we'll discuss it. But as for now, I don't see any of your changes as valid or helpful. Arbustoo 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Arbustoo, I will say the same, DO NOT DO A WHOLESALE REVERT AGAIN. Much more relevant and cited material has been added to the biography in response to various entries and it conforms with policy, not just enhancements to the intro. Edit language, DO NOT REMOVE CITED MATERIAL. If you continue to do this, we will contact administration for resolution. I never said that training as a police officer qualifies him as training as an archeologist, but it is relevant information for his BIOGRAPHY and EXPERIENCE and those skills have been useful to his explorations. --SYITS 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Without proper credentials, he is not a archeologist, and will likely never be one. Anyone can read books, dress up and self publish books. Your edits have violated OR, NPOV, COPYVIO, and SPA. If you choose not to discussion you changes you will be blocked for disruption. If Cornuke wishes to call himself archeologist he should attend an accredited program. Until then, the article will state that he is simply a former police officer turned "self styled Indiana Jones."
- In particular I find your edits about Franz most troubling. It violates the policies stated above. Arbustoo 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- SYITS, your additions are indeed original research. You need to cite reliable independent (i.e. not Cornuke apologist) sources which attest to the validity and significance of these claims. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Truthteller86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reverted. Arbustoo 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbustoo, Please demonstrate how, outside of me being a new user, my contribution to this article is "vandalism" as you call it. I did not simply delete your contrib, I only added fair, sourced material. Truthteller86 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86
- First explain where I called your edits "vandalism" and secondly, new user, why did you use your first ever edit to revert material? As for your concerns, putting words in an authors mouth is WP:OR. Arbustoo 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- arbustoo, 1.) On your next reply, you will note when in edit mode on this page, your false accusation of calling me a "vandal", time stamped, 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC). In case you try and edit this out, I have retained a screen shot. 2.) I used my first edit ever to revert material to respectfully ensure the contribution to Dr. Cornuke's Wiki is fair and balanced. I restored "reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say", as defined by WP:OR. arbustoo, please answer me now. How would you prefer to resolve this dispute over content in accordance to the WP rules/guidelines you so frequently refer? Truthteller86 12:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86
- Provide a link of that vandal claim. Arbustoo 01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- arbustoo, 1.) On your next reply, you will note when in edit mode on this page, your false accusation of calling me a "vandal", time stamped, 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC). In case you try and edit this out, I have retained a screen shot. 2.) I used my first edit ever to revert material to respectfully ensure the contribution to Dr. Cornuke's Wiki is fair and balanced. I restored "reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say", as defined by WP:OR. arbustoo, please answer me now. How would you prefer to resolve this dispute over content in accordance to the WP rules/guidelines you so frequently refer? Truthteller86 12:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86
- Truthteller86, if you want to write a hagiography of Cornuke you'll find Conservapedia will welcome you with open arms. We won't. This article has been the subject of sustained attempts at whitewashing over the years, you're not the first and I doubt you'll be the last. Small changes? Fine. Wholesale rewrites reversing the entire overall tone? No thanks. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- "truthteller86" I never called your edits vandalism, I am waiting for proof that shows otherwise, provide a link. Though I will be calling it vandalism in the near future. I have proof you are Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs) Do you want to start being honest? As for your revert, inserting claims about Oxford and putting words in author's mouths is not acceptable. Arbustoo 01:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- arbutsoo, I already answered your request to prove you labeled me a vandal in my post above indicated by 1.) in my reply. If you will simply scroll up about 8 posts back in EDIT MODE, you will note your post as follows:"{vandal|Truthteller86} was reverted. 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)" So, let's see...you had to physically type the word "vandal" as the WP hyperlink next to my user name, |Truthteller86. Did you not do this arbustoo? Did wiki aliens do this? I believe I have sufficiently proven that you marked/called/indicated/suggested/typed (whatever you like to term it) the word "vandal" next to my username. Secondly, it is your turn to offer clear evidence of your false acccusation that I am (the exact same physical human user) as Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs). I withhold comment at this time regarding your negative POV use of the term "unaccredited".
- Adding a vandal template for others to view your history, and calling you a vandal isn't the same thing. As for the clear evidence, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthteller86. Arbustoo 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- arbutsoo, I already answered your request to prove you labeled me a vandal in my post above indicated by 1.) in my reply. If you will simply scroll up about 8 posts back in EDIT MODE, you will note your post as follows:"{vandal|Truthteller86} was reverted. 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)" So, let's see...you had to physically type the word "vandal" as the WP hyperlink next to my user name, |Truthteller86. Did you not do this arbustoo? Did wiki aliens do this? I believe I have sufficiently proven that you marked/called/indicated/suggested/typed (whatever you like to term it) the word "vandal" next to my username. Secondly, it is your turn to offer clear evidence of your false acccusation that I am (the exact same physical human user) as Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs). I withhold comment at this time regarding your negative POV use of the term "unaccredited".
- arbustoo - I will see if you are willing to be professional and fair. At this point, you have not been. I am willing to agree to remove the reference to Oxford in its entirety by deleting the whole paragraph. The main reason this para was added was due to your use of the word "unaccredited" in re to Louisiana Baptist Univ. Using this term with no explaination, solely leaves a negative imprint on the reader. Just b/c a university is unaccredited, does not mean it is not legitimate or up to standard in its programs. As part of my compromise, I removed the word "unaccredited" in regard to LBU. If the reader wants more information on this University, they can research it themselves. This is certainly a fair compromise, especially considering this Wiki is on a LIVING PERSON. Your next actions will either expose your appearent agenda to discredit Robert Cornuke (of which this Wiki is NO place to do so) or suprise us by being professional and fair. Truthteller86 15:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86
- 1) It is unaccredited, which makes it a meaningless "education." Thus, it will be noted as such. 2) Being a police officer is no substitution for historical training. 3) Among the edits, "Contrary to the above statements Cornuke’s book, In Search of the Mountain of God actual identifies a number of people who..." is WP:OR. Arbustoo 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Reference
Update needed: The baseinstitute biography referenced (and noted as unavailable) is now at: http://www.baseinstitute.org/about/bioofbob.htm JCrocombe (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Biased Article
This article seems very biased to me. It is more like a blog on discrediting Bob Cornuke than a biographical piece. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodwordtoday (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems very biased to me as well. It really seems to need a complete overhaul. It sounds as if it were written by a biased critic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnwaco (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
POV
The article is cited for POV violation. The article is clearly written in its present form to present a negatively biased viewpoint of the subject. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Categories: