Talk:David Rohl

Old Talk pages

Please note because of the way this split was done loads of bio related discussion is now at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

New Chronology

I moved the theory stuff to New Chronology (Rohl). I hope that'll give us a chance to develop that better, and also the bio better. Also I've found 2 sources which might be useful. General about Rohl's work http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1168986.ece?token=null&offset=0 About the Egyptian tours (at the bottom) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4722245/Treasures-in-an-antique-land.html Rd232 ^talk 10:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY, this page should still have a summary of the contents of the New Chronology page. Since the chronology is a large part of why David Rohl is notable, it should still take up a substantial fraction of this article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. But as a substantial rewrite is going to happen (I think), it should be kept short. I've added the summary from the top of New Chron and that'll do for now I think. Rd232 ^talk 00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I disapprove of this split. It is highly duboious that the author has sufficient notability for a standalone bio article separate from a standalone article on his theories. There are serious WP:NOTE and WP:COI issues here. These articles are quite obviously an attempt to advertise a minority (or one-man) view within Egyptology. This is not what Wikipedia is for. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The notability of David Rohl is comparable to that of Kenneth Kitchen. And theories as Rohl's New Chronology stand on the material that is presented, not the person who presents it. The NC is not just Rohl's work but that of many others.

The COI issue is another one. Rohl has been advised to respect WP policies and to not edit controverial parts of the articles at issue and rather interact with other editors on the talk pages. There is a sufficient number of editors around who will see to it that the quality of the articles will steadily improve and not be limited to a single POV about the theory. Cush (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, Kenneth Kitchen plainly passes WP:PROF as a (formerly) tenured professor with a huge academic output and recognized expertise in the New Kingdom period. This doesn't put him above suspicion, especially in connection with his evangelical Christian bias, but at least this is suspicion plainly within academia.

Rohl plainly does not pass WP:PROF, and thus his notability needs to be established otherwise. We may argue he is notable as a writer of popular books. Even if we take the claims in the article for granted (provisionally suspending WP:CITE!), Rohl has received a "degree in Ancient History and Egyptology in 1990". Presumably a MA? We also have the claim that "he is currently working on his doctoral thesis". What is "currently", and how is this verifiable? His notability is obviously not due to a doctoral thesis that may or may not appear at some point in the future, but for his publications that have appeared. His main claim to notability, always based on what's in the article without having verified, would seem to be the Channel 4 series based on his Test of Time. This may allow us to keep this article around within WP:BLP, but it certainly does not establish that Rohl is an "Egyptologist".

The COI problem does not primarily affect the David Rohl (talk · contribs) account, which is indeed mostly restricted to talkpage posts, but the Cush (talk · contribs) and Rd232 (talk · contribs) accounts, operated by editors clearly interested in touting Rohl's theories beyond their (next to non-existent) academic credibility. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, Kitchen is a Pentecostalist. He's nothing but another fundamentalist Christian who tries to match findings with the Bible at all cost. But his chronology just doesn't add up, no matter what his reputation might be. Anyone can check this with a pocket calculator. I have ended up with Rohl exactly because nothing I have read in 15 years prior made any sense. As soon as something better comes along I am always ready to switch. However, I would indeed want to have a more coherent scientific basis. The published material is sometimes too quick with conclusions (that might be based on unpublished material). CUSH 19:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

1. Dab changed some text cited to Bennett 96, saying "The "New Chronology" has has been universally rejected in mainstream Egyptology." which I couldn't find support for: diff I note that dab put New Chronology in scare quotes for no obvious reason, which is typical of his attitude. Anyway with no support in Bennett that i could see, I changed it to referring to the Cambridge Archaeological Journal, which Rohl then removed since the CAJ was talking about Peter James' work. I've now brought back the original phrasing. If dab wants his much stronger version, please provide a direct quote rather than an interpretation (quote here if it's too long, so we can agree an interpretation).
2. Dab removed the word "Egyptologist" and category Egyptologist, which I undid, citing Bennett 96 who refers to Rohl as a "trained Egyptologist", as the UCL degree and incomplete phd would suggest. If dab wants to continue to contest, he should provide a (sourced) definition of "Egyptologist" which Rohl fails to meet. Rd232 ^talk 10:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think it's been universally rejected. The two quotes of Kitchen that I posted (see Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)#Kitchen refs) cite Clancy, who apparently does accept Rohl's chronology. It would be helpful to find a source by Clancy, e.g. "Shishak/Shoshenq's travels" JSOT 86 (1999) 3-23, as cited by Kitchen. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I.e. here [1] Can someone get hold of a copy of this article? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

   I only have access to JSOT from 2001 :( There is a second-hand summary in a book though [2] Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• the thesis is rejected universally in academic Egyptology. That's what we mean by "Egyptology".
• "incomplete phd" amounts to "no phd". We are calling somebody an "Egyptologist" who once got an M.A. in the subject. This isn't acceptable. What we can state is that DR wrote a couple of popular books about ancient Egypt, and that he once got basic academic training in the subject. --dab (𒁳) 10:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're setting your own standards here for what is required to be an "Egyptologist". Show that this isn't WP:OR. Rd232 ^talk 10:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

By the logic that because Rohl abandoned his PhD he isn't an Egyptologist, neither is Kenneth Kitchen as he doesn't have a PhD either. Of course Rohl IS an egyptologist and I doubt even his sternest critics would be so foolish as to deny his mastery of the subject matter. 09:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMathemagician (talk • contribs)

David Rohl - geographical theories

Do we really need a separate article for this?

And while I'm at it, Garden of Eden says "Another possibility was proposed by archaeologist David Rohl who states that there were two gardens of Eden", is that correct? Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for a separate article. The geography goes with the overall identification. And there are no two gardens of Eden, there are rather two places for Dilmun. CUSH 19:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

David Rohl is embraced by alternative historians and conspiracy theorists, he has not got the endorsement of academic scholarship. That's it, in a nutshell. Lung salad (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That does not make him a Pseudohistorian. His interpretations may not be widely shared, but his methods are vaild. He is not Ron Wyatt or Erich von Däniken. And since "academic scholarship" (who? Kitchen, whose chronologies never add up?) has no satisfactory answers to the addressed issues to offer, his approach is as good as any other. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with the whole concept of "pseudohistorian" anyway, since the term doesn't really exist. (See my comments here and here.) But, despite what User:Lung salad might think, there is, I'm sure, no consensus by editors of this page that Rohl is a "pseudohistorian" (and, as User:Cush could have pointed out, Rohl was trained as a historian). Most importantly, however, does User:Lung salad have a valid SOURCE describing Rohl (or anybody else he has labeled "pseudohistorian") as a pseudohistorian? Then I would say his category is valid. (If you have a source saying Rohl's theories are pseudohistory, categorize it as that, but don't tag him with a made up term.) TuckerResearch (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree the label "pseudohistorian" requires a source. And a good one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Pseudohistorian" may be a bit of an unfortunate term to express that this individual publishes "pseudohistory". It's not advisable to move from a characterization of the work to a characterization of the author's identity, so to speak. But it is still important to warn the reader that unless they are into pseudohistory, they can safely skip this article, as Rohl is notable for his pseudohistorical publications alone. (no, Cush, his "methods" aren't "valid". He goes around looking for Old Testament characters in the historical record. If this is a "method", it is the Rorschach one, but certainly not something that anyone interested in researching actual history would consider interesting for more than two minutes).

I have long argued that this entire thing lacks notability. But since we have several dedicated aficionados of Rohl's theory, plus Rohl himself, who keep pushing this stuff, and inflating its notability, we'll just have to make sure readers will not mistake this for serious material. Therefore, a "pseudohistory" label is absolutely necessary, even though I agree that the "pseudohistorian" label isn't a very good choice.

Lung salad is correct that the Rohl articles are completely broken, because they are clearly written by proponents (including Rohl himself). This violates all project principles. The "pseudohistory" label was a comparatively mild attempt to address this, what should be done instead is tagging the entire articles for merge and cleanup, and then cut out all the agenda-driven rhetorics trying to present this stuff as notable. In reality, this is a topic of pop culture, crackpot "alternative history" and evangelical fundamentalism. If it was presented as such, Wikipedia could well carry a single short article about it. But the problem is that dedicated people with an agenda have invested a lot of work into misrepresenting this as valid scholarship.

We do not need a source for "pseudohistorian". All the references we need are already in the articles. Now we just need to clean up the articles to conform with project rules. At present, the "New Chronology" article states very openly that the thing is without any credibility in scholarship. It then embarks on a bizarrely detailed essay presenting the thing as if it was a scholarly theory regardless. This violates WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 06:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lot of words here. Let's keep things simple and concise. Rohl is involved in historical revisionism relating to Egyptology. His revisionism is not accepted by mainstream historians. (Please cite the historians that agree with him.) This brand of unacceptable historical revisionism is known as pseudohistory. There are no sources that can be cited because no scholars have produced a debunking of David Rohl, they have simply placed him on "ignore". He is a pseudohistorian who manufacures pseudohistory. He is not mainstream. Lung salad (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus (directly below). The word "pseudohistorian" would suggest to most people either a conscious fraudulent faker, or someone who recklessly disregards historical accuracy in pursuit of some other agenda. Rohl, on the other hand, seems to be painfully earnest in believing that his theories are the best fit to historical reality... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• The only alternative to mainstream is not "pseudo". It is obvious, and it should be obvious from the article, that Rohl is on the fringe and that his work holds little weight. That does not mean that we can label a living person as a "pseudo historian" without a single source to support it. The argument about the reader having to know they can skip the article doesn't hold as I don't think any reader reads the category before the article. The lead should show that he is not mainstream. No need for pejorative labels.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just have a problem with the term "pseudohistorian," since it does not exist. And there are problems with labeling Rohl pseudohistory, just because he isn't accepted by mainstream historians, as he is a trained historian working within the strictures of his discipline. Find me a source that says otherwise, and tack him with the label. But, his detractors don't even say his is psuedohistory, they just don't disagree. Dab's characterization that "He [Rohl] goes around looking for Old Testament characters in the historical record" is, I think disingenuous, and, so what? The Old Testament is a valuable historical document. Right? What's the difference between the Torah and Hammurabi's code? A religion is built around one. To lump Rohl in with Ron Wyatt or Erich von Däniken or even Michael Baigent or holocaust deniers is, I think a stretch too far. But, back to "pseudohistorian," it is a term that doesn't exist in the historigraphical literature. You can't tag someone with an undefined term just because you disagree with the guy. Historians disagree with one another ALL THE TIME. Tag it "alternative history" or "pseudohistory" (if you have a source for the latter), but "pseudohistorian"? (As an aside, to Dab, Wikipedia is not paper, and as long as his theory is kept to his bio page and the "New Chronology" page, I don't think it violates WP:UNDUE.) Maunus, here here. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make two points here:

(1) Almost any theory about the Bible's value as history could be considered "pseudohistory". Not only are there -- to be blunt -- countless kooks with their own ideas of what "really" happened, there are many groups with a political stake in their own pet interpretations. Unless a given statement has been labelled by a recognized authority as fringe, kookery -- or "pseudohistory" -- Wikipedia shouldn't label that statement as such. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't point out when statements conflict with known facts, or are clearly untrue.)

(2) Rohl is a living person, & calling him a "pseudohistorian" can be considered violating that nasty bit of policy known as WP:BLP. Use that word, & we might end up summoning people who aren't as reasonable as those here -- or get attention from some unfriendly types at OTRS. Best to avoid the word, & find something else in this article to quarrel over. -- llywrch (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch: If the term pseudohistorian doesn't exist, how can you mention it, then? I think you mean it's not an accepted technical term, and could be considered a neologism or even protologism (interestingly both autological words), but it's formed according to well-known analogies and therefore easy to understand: a pseudohistorian would be someone who engages in pseudohistory. (In German, you can make up compound words as you speak, even if they have never been used before, and can expect to be understood; to be frank, the complaint that an unusual word is "a made-up word" and "does not exist" only because it's not used in print or listed in dictionaries is a tad silly. Also, how should the vocabulary of any language ever expand if there were a ban on forming new words, essentially robbing the language of a hallmark of vitality? Even Latin and Esperanto users keep forming neologisms.) Oh no, the sentence you just formed has never been written by anyone before – stop using made-up, non-existent sentences! :-P --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood my point. But, fine: asgudlfklasgdfjklg. There, I just coined a word. It means pedantic, off-topic answers meant to insult my intelligence. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny, from my perspective, it's you who completely misunderstood my point, and made a pedantic, off-topic answer meant to insult my intelligence. In light of my explanation, your example is, frankly, idiotic: your "coinage" is precisely not intuitively understandable, the way pseudohistorian is. Pretending that pseudohistorian is somehow not immediately intelligible as "somebody who engages in pseudohistory" by way of the historian – history analogy is exactly such an insult to my intelligence. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to engage in your offtopiccommentry. (Future OED editors, it entered the lexicon here!) TuckerResearch (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So you like strawmen and false analogies. An actual comparison would be the word pseudoarchaeologist, for starters. (Or pseudolinguist, or pseudomathematician, or pseudophysicist, or pseudophilosopher, or pseudo-scholar.) Now I have to conclude that you would insist that word too "does not exist" or is a nonsensical neologism only because it's not in the OED. Let alone pseudoscientist. Hey, if such transparent formations do not exist, I can call you a pseudohumorist and pseudoacademic. Small wonder that you understand anything but ready-made phrases in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, after more than a year... what anger and hostility. On a topic long since dead. And apparently you like ad hominem attacks and intellectual frippery, if you want to talk about argumentation. Please cease your offtopiccommentry, I won't reply anymore. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Pot – meet kettle. (Read your first reply to me, for starters.) So I can insult you with nonexistent words? I thought pseudoacademic was exactly like asgudlfklasgdfjklg, you zujkoapikv. Hey, perhaps your "frippery" (whatever that is, I've never heard of it so it does not exist omg! and you probably complimented me!) has annoyed me, too. (And your total refusal to acknowledge my point, replying instead with mockery and whining about ad hominems when you're on the receiving end for once. Right, focus on anything but the actual argument.) Guess what, other people have feels, too. Further examples: unconvinceable and pettyish. Probably not in the OED, but formed after such a productive and transparent pattern that frankly nobody cares if they aren't and their meaning is entirely predictable. You can't verb nouns on the fly either, apparently, when the result is not officially sanctioned by your beloved OED. The world out there, do you know it? My facepalmarium is becoming overcrowded. If we can't use non-OED-approved words like conspiracy theorist, unpronounceability or Celticity in Wikipedia only because pedants might complain, we might as well call it a day! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Pseuodohistory and pseudohistorian are in fact used as technical terms, eg [3] The Historical Present: Uses and Abuses of the Past by Edwin M. Yoder, Jr. "The pseudohistorian supposes that parallels arc identical with causes, clearly a fallacy, since by analogy the historical sophist can demonstrate almost any bogus historical connection, from the "Marxist" origins of the American income tax to the "fascist" inspiration of the New Deal." And in [4] Irish Orientalism: A Literary and Intellectual History by Joseph Lennon Nennius is referred to as a pseudohistorian. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I never had a qualm about "pseudohistory," but I must admit that is the first use of "pseudohistorian" I've seen in any historiographical literature (your first reference). Kudos. But, both of those definitions do not fit Rohl. I wouldn't call Rohl a "historical sophist" who just makes up clearly fallacious connections. Nor is Rohl a medieval chronicler. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unconventional theories

Can someone please explain this term? When is a new theory not unconventional? Surely by definition a new theory breaks the boundaries of convention? Isn't that what a theory does? To label a theory as unconventional is a tautology and is a complete nonsense. It only serves to act as a pejorative. Lung has interlaced this article with his term unconventional theory. Would he do the same with the bio of Einstein? Were Einstein's theories conventional? Was plate tectonics theory conventional. Please remove this nonsensical term. David Rohl (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this would not be such an issue if you would finally substantiate your theories. A new book concentrating on your evidence would be nice. You start off well but then fail to deliver. Although your New Chronology is indeed coherent and has explanatory value, you are not winning over archaeologists and historians, because your conclusions are not supported by sufficient evidence. And sometimes your conclusions are only derived from religious doctrine. The core of the matter is that you are just too scientifically lazy to be taken seriously. And don't tell me otherwise, as I have read all your books and I am monitoring the Yahoo group. From the looks of it, you are developing towards being the next Immanuel Velikovsky, Ron Wyatt or even Erich von Däniken. You have already been labeled a pseudo-historian here. ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "unconventional" is simply an attempt at being polite about it. Your comparisons of your speculations to Einstein's and Wegener's theories are amusing in light of this. I do think we should perhaps consider another wordchoice as "unconventional" is a bit on the woolly side - perhaps "speculative". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Cush for that kind response. I would suggest you take a look at how theories concerning ancient history are substantiated. It usually involves new archaeological discovery, which tends to appear only very slowly. To turn the coin, no archaeological evidence has appeared since the publication of A Test of Time which proves the theory wrong either. The convincing of orthodox scholars will only come through new discoveries, not through further argument or repetitions of evidence that already exists. As for publishing a new book, you should know very well that books, and history books in particular, are not big sellers these days and publishers are not investing in history writers the way they used to. I have not had a book contract since 2003 and so how do you expect me to produce that book and survive for two years during the process of its writing? As for 'sufficient evidence', ancient history is full of constructed chronology based on insufficient evidence (for example the TIP or SIP in Egypt). On the matter of the term 'pseudo-historian' (which was not the subject here) is Professor Ken Kitchen a pseudo-historian for writing a book called 'On the Reliability of the Old Testament', which advocates an historical Bible based on minimal evidence? How's about his use of religious doctrine (whatever you mean by that)? Your accusation of scientific laziness is hurtful and unfair because you do not appreciate my position as a fellow human being. As has been pointed out on several occasions in these discussion pages, I have been attacked, accused of everything under the sun and ridiculed; accused of not being an Egyptologist or trained scholar; vilified by some academics and others in Wikipedia (and elsewhere on the web) who remain conveniently anonymous. As a result, because this has been a very effective tactic in the art of ostracism, I do not have the resources, financially or physically, to continue with my research. I live in Spain because we couldn't afford to keep our house in the UK, and unable to get access to a university library with archaeological volumes. I have a wife and a mortgage which requires me to earn a living in whatever way I can. We are about to have our house here in Spain repossessed. That is why you have not heard much new from me in terms of research and new writings. I am trying to survive all the personal attacks and ridicule whilst trying to maintain a modicum of dignity. But the simple fact is that, after fifteen years, the New Chronology theory has not been proved wrong. It has not been proved right either. It remains a theory ... but it is not an 'unconventional theory' any more than any other theory, which by definition is what theory is. Wikipedia is supposed to be scrupulously neutral and fair (though it often fails to be so). I would therefore appreciate it if you would address the question of the accuracy of the term 'unconventional theories' and if there are such things ... or just theories?David Rohl (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Publisher of Rohl's new book on the Exodus

This seems to be a new company[5] set up by Timothy P Mahoney for a film on the Exodus (and a book).[6] I can't even find a website. I'm not objecting to listing the book, but I will point out it fails WP:RS in that it's not reliably published, so shouldn't be used as a source. Doug Weller (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

www.davidrohl.com not considered a reliable source

This is due to its apparent association with the article's subject.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source for controversial details of Egyptology, but if it's David Rohl's official website, then it can be used as a source for what his positions are... AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(1) Is it even cited in this article? (2) I don't think that site is functioning. Is it? (3) To refer to David Rohl's ideas, I don't see why citing his official site would be wrong, though it would be better to cite his books or other works which mention him if available. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a domain-grabber website, so referring to it is useless. The link to the web.archive site points to his CV, which could be used as a primary source for information that clearly is also available elsewhere, but not to be found without effort. But since that only amounts to trivia the vagueness is acceptable. It holds no information about any "controversial details of Egyptology" ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Videos

Hello all, Would it be appropriate to add "Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus" to the videos section? I'm asking because it was a production by Timothy Mahoney and not David Rohl. Although, the production features Rohl and his teachings throughout. Thank you for your counsel on thisDakotacoda (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)