Talk:Patterns of Evidence

NPOV

All the sources are conservative/Christian sources. Several of them seem to fail WP:RSN. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that several seem to fail RS. I'm not concerned if they are conservative or Christian. This isn't the sort of film that will get a broad spectrum of coverage. Isn't reliability the main concern? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Factual Errors

There is no "panel of non-experts" at any point. All the experts from the earlier parts of the film are brought back during the last half hour. There is no segmentation dividing this part of the film; "half-hour" is arbitrary, however no new experts (or otherwise) are brought in during roughly the last 30 minutes. Additionally, the Pharaoh cited in the article is wrong, as he is an 18th dynasty Pharaoh, (perhaps Amenemhat II is meant?) whereas the film postulates (by name) a late 16th dynasty Pharaoh, Dedumose I, but otherwise only links the collapse of the middle kingdom to the Exodus events and Hyksos invasion, making 12th-16th dynasties within the possible range. 46.19.139.126 (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• There was a panel, including Eric Metaxas, Anne Graham Lotz and Dennis Prager. The first source (which won't pass RS) talks about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it temporarily until we can find a decent source. Haven't changed the Pharaoh and won't without a source. Doug Weller (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say Anne Lotz website is a reasonably reliable source for what she is going [1]. Christian Post is a RS, but does call them experts [2]. A local radio station [3]. TBN is a RS for it's programming [4]. I think we can return it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds ok so long as we don't call them experts. Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If the film is putting forward a new chronology, and using that to propose a dating of the Exodus, why would you then use the traditional Egyptian chronology when referring to the Pharaoh? Surely it is better to be consistent and make clear that the film is proposing a particular date and a particular pharaoh, rather than half of one and half of the other? 212.3.192.124 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

This shouldn't be removed:

{{quote|Mahoney’s method of film-making is pretty straight forward. Gather together an ensemble cast of legitimate scholars, then lionize some fringe loon on the outskirts of the academic radar.<ref name="Falk 2019">{{cite web | last=Falk | first=David A. | title=The Moses Controversy: More So-called Patterns of "Evidence" | website=Egypt and the Bible | date=15 January 2019 | url=http://www.egyptandthebible.com/index.php/2019/01/15/moses-controversy-so-called-patterns-of-evidence/ | access-date=28 October 2020}}</ref>|David A. Falk|The Moses Controversy: More So-called Patterns of “Evidence”}}

Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't; but regardless its placement is misleading. The way the article is written, it sounds like Falk said this because it disagrees with the documentary/supplementary hypothesis; but Falk disagrees with these views himself and holds to an early authorship of the Pentateuch. He was attacking the film because of its handling of some early Canaanite inscriptions and because it dates the Exodus in the 15th century BC rather than the 13th century BC.