Talk:Thomas L. Thompson

Recent Controversies

I edited the Recent Controversies section just a little to make it more standard English. Note that it could still stand some editing, because there's a lot of jarring repetition of words ("discovery" or "discoveries" is used in each of the current three sentences). (This repetition is entirely my fault. I felt the accuracy was worth the clumsiness.) In any event, the addition that Sami put in was certainly needed. When i first saw this article i resolved that i would have to edit that section because at the time it totally failed to mention the fact that Thompson had addressed the Tel Dan Stele. But Sami was more diligent than i and fixed it first.

Further, there should be some citation to which maximalist authors are claiming that these recent discoveries are somehow undermining Thompson's work. I doubt very much that any such authors have a compelling case, but to be fair somebody should make a reference to their work if any can be found.

Son of eugene (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

POV problems

A large part of the biography section is essentially devoted to painting the subject as a brave truth warrior who was penalized for daring to say the truth. That is a rather POV story in itself, and the fact that it mainly goes back to the subject's own books make it even worse. The biography need a complete overhaul and much more neutral writing. Ideally, both Thompson and a some academic opponent of Thompson should be equally pleased with the article, that's WP:NPOV.Jeppiz (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific in what statements you consider to be non-neutral? What is it you imagine that an opponent of Thompson would not be pleased with in the representation of the controversy? While of course I must admit I have written most of the biography section, I must say I don't see the problem you do. I think it is very clearly the case that Thompson was penalized for his academic views - but I dont think the article gives the impression that his views are necessarily the truth. I don't believe there are any sources available that contradict Thompson's account of the events in his life and career - but there are sources that corroborate most of them - while grantedly they are written by some of his academic allies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an expert in Thompson's field or any related field, so I don't take a stand on whether Thompson is right or wrong (even if I were an expert, it would be WP:OR to take such a stand). Having read a little by Thompson and a little bit of some academic opponents of his, I'm quite sure Thompson would agree with you that he was penalized for his academic views. If you take someone from the other side, let's say Dever (whom I've also read just a little), his view would be that Thompson failed to get positions due to not being a very serious academic. I am not saying the article should say that either, it would be just as POV. What we should say, though, is how widely accepted Thompson's views are. If the mainstream of academics agree with his views, we should say it. If most academics reject his views, we should also say it. But we should not use Thompson's own works (with his view about himself) as a source for his biography. Thompson may be a suitable source on several subjects, but not on himself (which of course goes for all persons).Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have a source for Dever saying that then that is something actionable that we can use to improve the article, but editors are under no obligation to try to imagine specific authors possible objections unless they actually publish them. And yes of course we should use Thompson's own views and statements about himself, using autobiographies is a perfectly fine and acceptable source - when there are conflicting views then the source of the statement is explicitly made clear in the text. There is nothing wrong or objectionable in reporting the biographed subjects own statements about their experiences, and doing so is not in conflict with NPOV. If there are specific statements in the article that you object to then please state which those are so that I can do something about it - a general complain about relying on an autobiography is not a valid or actionable concern. So, if you know of any sources that describe Thompson's career and the reason he didnt get a job in the US in a different way then please present them. Simply doubting the veracity of Thompson's statements is not cause for a POV tag unless there is some sustantial support on which those doubts are based.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My point is not really about Thompson, it's about Wikipedia. A person's autobiography about controversies they have been involved in is never a good source to use as the source for such a section.Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

First that is not true, there is no restriction on using autobiographies, which can be entirely acceptable sources, when used with care. When an autobiography is the only source to someone's life it can be used - within the provisions of WP:PRIMARY. Secondly you cant place a POV tag just because you have concerns about a source, but without specific concrete concerns about neutrality that can be addressed. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so is there any neutral source for the following claims, for example "The École was heavily criticized by certain Israeli circles who objected to his earlier study casting doubt on the historicity of the Jewish origin narratives. He then worked on Palestinian place names under UNESCO, but the project was closed amidst accusations of anti-semitism because of Thompson's critique of Israeli practices of de-Arabicizing Palestinian place names". Is this fact as sourced by neutral opinion, or is it Thompson's personal view. "Certain Israelie circles" is very vague, what is meant here? Is there any neutral confirmation that the project Thompson was working on was closed just because of "Israeli practices of de-Arabicizing Palestinian place names". What are those practices, are they covered elsewhere in WP:RS or is it again just Thompon's personal opinion? And "did not receive tenure despite the international reputation of his research" Which outside source is claiming international reputation and what is meant by it? Researchers can be notable for their research for both positive reasons (Stephen Hawking) or for negative reasons (Andrew Wakefield), so again a claim that is both vague and unsourced, while again conveying some kind of conspiracy. Another unsourced claim is his examiner Joseph Ratzinger, then Tübingen's Professor of Systematic Theology and later Pope Benedict XVI, rejected it as not fitting for a Catholic theologian. I've heard it before, I'm saying that it's wrong, but it's certainly unsourced. I hope these examples show some of the problems with the section on Thompson's life.Jeppiz (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the statements you mention are unsourced as you claim. They are sourced to Thompsons own statements which is acceptable since his views and interpretations of facts in his life are by definition notable. If you find reason to doubt the veracity of the statements or think it is important to note that they represent Thompsons own view of the events that can be addressed by adding in text attribution of the statements to Thompson. That is what I will proceed to do, and then I will remove the POV tag.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We're going round in circles, and I have a feeling you deliberately do not WP:HEAR. I explicitly said these claims are not sourced beyond Thompson himself and that it is highly WP:POV to rely only on the autobiography of a controversial person and make general claims.Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)