Wikipedia Smears Archaeologist Bryant Wood

Here is an example of wikipedia, completely MAKING UP something. Bryant Wood has never said such absurd things. If you check the wiki page on Wood, the VERY FIRST paragraph ends with “1550 is the accepted date by scholars.” This is referring to the fall of Jericho and a further smear not only of Wood, but an attack on the Bible by supporting unreliable methods of dating.

Are you aware that “wikipedia” does not write articles? Anyone can register as a user and write articles, that is the point of it, to share knowledge. If what is on there is not backed up by a reliable source you can remove it yourself!

I am aware of this. I use the word wikipedia because I don’t know who the authors are. And No i cannot remove it myself. Wikipedia is so packed with dishonest posters that for me to correct it would prove impossible. I have tried it before. If you also would look it up. JIFD exposed a single Muslim author continually blocking changes on the article about the Yom Kippur War which tried to remove smears against Israel.,_by_Dr_Bryant_Wood

There are certain articles that are “warred” over. Yom Kippur War is one of them; it’ actually been through Wikipedia’s internal arbitration system.

Wikipedia has definitely gotten tighter lately though. It’s definitely gotten more cliquey.

The Wikipedia article seems to have been revised to remove the offending material.

If someone tries to edit the article, they will see this caution at the top of the page:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If ever in doubt, the magic words at Wikipedia are “BLP” (Biography of a living person). It’s one of the most powerful policies there.

For Wikipedia's 10th anniversary Slate ran an article about the entry on Jesus as an illustration of the wiki process, editing, wiki-wars, &c.

The vandals only got worse. On Jan. 19, 2005, Wikipedia Jesus got a security detail; unregistered users were now forbidden to edit the page. As soon as the protection was lifted, the vandals came back. His followers began to develop a division of labor: Some were janitors, others grammarians, and a few monitored all legitimate contributions with a cautious eye. Either because of or in spite of their efforts, the page got branded with a disclaimer: "The neutrality of this article is disputed," with clip art of an unbalanced scale. There was a tense dispute over the use of "A.D." versus "C.E." for dates.

Wikipedia is okay for fairly straightforward questions like what is Godel's Theorem and dates of events.

the image is from either the article on schimcha jacobovich or the naked archaeologist.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit