Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls

Conspiracy Theory

From the article:

• Vatican conspiracy theory

Allegations that the Vatican suppressed the publication of the scrolls were published in the 1990s. Notably, Michael Baigent's and Richard Leigh's book The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception claim that several key scrolls were deliberately kept under wraps for decades to suppress unwelcome theories about the early history of Christianity; in particular, Eisenman's speculation that the life of Jesus was deliberately mythicized by Paul, possibly a Roman agent who faked his "conversion" from Saul in order to undermine the influence of anti-Roman messianic cults in the region. The complete publication and dissemination of translations and photographic records of the works in the late 1990s and early 2000s - particularly the publication of all of the "biblical" scrolls - has greatly increased the credibility of their argument among mainstream scholarship. Today most scholars, both secular and religious, feel the documents are distinctly Jewish in origin, connecting them to early Christianity.

Okay now, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are NOT scholars. These are the guys who wrote Holy Blood Holy Grail, the Jesus Papers and the Messianic Legacy, basically conspiracy theories which have since been exploded. I would think the publishing of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have WEAKENED (not "strengthened") their argument (that the Vatican was purposely hindering the DSS publication because the DSS contained information devastating to Christianity). The DSS don't seem to be about Christianity at all (they only "connection" being they are about 2nd Temple Judaism, out of which Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism would emerge). Barbara Theiring and Robert Eisennman (sp?) are considered fringe scholars now in their understanding (Theiring much more so). How to phrase that diplomatically without being misleading? If the documents are "distinctly Jewish in origin" how does that automatically connect them to early Christianity? The article is unclear.

"If the documents are "distinctly Jewish in origin" how does that automatically connect them to early Christianity?" This is a very simple question to answer... Christianity is a sect of the Jewish faith. the original Christians were Jewish people who believed Jesus was the Messiah spoken of by the early Jews. Jews and Christians read all the same religious text but Jews don't read about Jesus (the new testament). therefor anything to do with early Jewish religion or the "Jewish God of isriel" would mean it holds value to Christianity and speaks about the God they believe in and the people (Jews) they believe to be the chosen ones.

                                                       ~~Thank You  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.25.98 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 

I presume that this alleged suppression was to have occurred at some time since 1947, not 2,000 years ago. To argue that they were written 2,000 years ago, and yet had nothing at all to do with early Christianity is hard to believe, and as you point out in your first paragraph, "most scholars" don't. There can be little doubt that those who had early access to the scrolls were a small, privileged group who delayed, for whatever reason, not only their general publication, but also details about discoveries in progress. So the question is not whether there was conspiracy, but whether it was directed by "The Vatican", and not just noted or approved of by Roman Catholic influence from outside the group. But in your second paragraph, you argue the opposite, that they "don't seem to be about Christianity at all". Considering that they were certainly religious in nature, and roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, why don't they seem "connected" to you? Assuming Jesus was around, and an important religious personage, why would the writers of the scrolls, who, like Jesus, were Jewish and unconventional in their attitudes, have avoided writing anything at all about him? I find it more plausible that they did, but without using the name ("Jesus Christ") with which we are familiar today. Unfree (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

when is it thought the scrolls were written? what steps needed to be taken to prove they were not forged? Kingturtle 00:45 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

• One guy thought they were medieval when first published, but a combination of archaeology, palaeography, and carbon dating convinces most today that they were written, variously, between 200 BCE and 70 CE (the destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish War thought to be the end of the period during which scrolls were deposited there), with most of the carbon dated ones being BCE. This is from memory.--Peter Kirby 08:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

i checked all the journal articles on this guys and the few responses they made to him. i also checked out some documentaries about the dating of the manuscripts with all modern techniques. the bones found in the community that placed the scrolls there were dated to the middle ages, the jewelry in the bones was dated to the 12th AD. carbon testing was never applied on the scrolls, it was applied to the woolens within which, it was claimed by the Bedouin, the scrolls were wrapped. furthermore Mrs. Elizabeth crowfoot, in her introduction, discoveries in the Judean desert, wrote "a carbon 14 test was carried out by Dr. F.E. Zeuner on some of the woolens; unfortunately the date return, AD. 546-66 does not coincide with any known occupation". S. Zeitlin seems to have had better paleographical proof than his contestants because nobody really answered. he pointed out to certain anachronisms, including physical signs on the scrolls, parentheses, connecting lines between two words and ellipses indicating that a word or words had been omitted. he also pointed out to reference notes on the text, something that was not done till the middle ages. what i recommend is to add more information on the opinion of this scholar, we all know there was much interest to date the scrolls to antiquity because there was nothing like it. before these scrolls the older scrolls were medieval dating to the 9-11 AD. what most strikes me is that the findings comprised sections of some 800 books, a whole library in a few words. however, in antiquity there were only libraries in large cities, no libraries in small communities. libraries in small communities is something you would expect in the middle ages. so there is scientific proof, paleographic proof, and respected scholars that continuously published articles in the Jewish quarterly review. this opinion then should not be put under the carpet in an encyclopedia that as far as i know intends to be complete.

It certainly would make your writing a lot more "penetrable" if you'd conform to common standards of grammar and punctuation. ("on this guys and", "responses they made to him", "documentaries", "bones", "parentheses", "ellipses", "reference notes", "the 9-11 AD", "library in a few words" -?)

The scrolls have indeed been carbon dated, at least twice, and found to be roughly 2,000 years old. Your "research" must be flawed. Why you are complaining about the word "library" makes no sense. Call them a "collection", if you wish. It's irrelevant to what they are. Unfree (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Israel obtained 4 of the 7 Dead Sea scrolls on 13 February 1955. -- What does that mean? There are far more than 7 altogether. Someone who is familiar with this please fix it. -- zero 09:16, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• I have fixed this and much expanded the "Discovery" section. --Peter Kirby 08:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal with this?

Is this going anywhere? This thread appears to be four years old. I can't tell from the text of the affected § whether it is referring to the original authors of the scrolls as conspirators, those involved in the restoration and/or translation or what. I think the *§ should just be removed unless something coherent can be said. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Things to fix and improve

Is there a typo in the WSJ ad? It reads "This would be and ideal gift to an educational or religious institution by an individual or group." Was that actually what was in the WSJ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glengyron (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

The first paragraph of the discovery section is plagiarised from http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/discovery.shtml

• This no longer appears to be the case. Tbarron 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I came upon this article looking for information on the Dead Sea scrolls. What a messy article! I really think that it needs to be re-organized and re-written.

71.2.34.46 (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Another Possible Issue

It seems that as with most of such ancient documents the date and time of the creation of these scrolls is still debateable. I've read sources that say the Scrolls could have been made up to 60 years after the life of Christ and another source that said that the scrolls were possibly created 60 years before Christ's life. I'm not the person to make such a correction but I think more research could be done on this topic before this page should be considered at least temporaly complete.

Both facts are quite accurate, based on carbon dating. No "correction" is required. Unfree (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

---

1. The article only mentions the Qumran cave but scrolls from the same time period have also been found at a number of other places in the Dead Sea area, such as at Masada.
2. The argument over whether the scrolls were written on-site or brought from somewhere else needs to be aired. A recent contribution to this argument is mentioned here: Archeologists claim Essenes never wrote Dead Sea Scrolls (Haaretz)

--Zero 07:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the Haaretz link is dead. Fortunately, I have books by Golb and others and may be able to shed some light on this subject. --Peter Kirby 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Although this article is overall quite good, I find some of these articles tend to be somewhat bland and brief. In a comparison between this article and that on the Book of Daniel, I find that there are several unsubstantiated, broad-ranging claims made. (Eg. Daniel derives from two separate sources around the 2nd-3rd centuries AD, etc.) The fact is among the Dead Sea scrolls were found fragments from the Book of Daniel, proving that it had wide distribution well before the 2nd BC, a major point supporting that book's authenticity and completely unreported upon in either the Daniel article or the Dead Sea Scrolls article. Could I get some feedback on these points? TTWSYF

• I don't see the "2nd-3rd centuries AD" claim in the Book of Daniel article. Was it cleaned up, or did you confuse the reference to centuries BC? The Dead Sea Scrolls prove (should that be "prove"? people are fussy about that word) that Daniel was written before AD 70 and provide evidence that Daniel was written in the centuries BC; however, they do not push the date of Daniel back before 200 BC. --Peter Kirby 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is somewhat out of date. The introduction to the 2004 edition of Geza Vermes' "complete" translation of the scrolls describes more recent developments and has a more complete account of how the scrolls came to be published. Maybe someone with a deeper interest than I have can check it out and update the article. The published edition of the scrolls (called "Discoveries in the Judean Desert") is now up to something like 36 volumes with a few more to go.

Don't confuse these two; Vermes edited (I think; perhaps authored) "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (3rd ed. containing the Temple Scroll) (London: Penguin, 1987)", ("DSSE") according to Thiering's bibliography in JM; Discoveries in the Judean Desert ("DJD") is a series produced by "the International Team" and published "mainly" (according to Eisenman and Wise, on page 5 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (New York, Barnes and Noble, 1994) by the Oxford University Press. E and W also write, loc. cit., "By controlling the unpublished manuscripts -- the pace of their publication, who was given a document to edit and who was not -- the International Team could, for one thing, create instant scholarly 'superstars'. For another, it controlled the interpretation of the texts. For example, instead of a John Allegro, a John Strugnell was given access; instead of a Robert Eisenman, a Frank Moore Cross; instead of a Michael Wise, an Emile Puech. Without competing analyses, these interpretations grew almost inevitably into a kind of 'official' scholarship." (Clearly, Eisenman and Wise felt slighted!) Unfree (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

"Geza Vermes, who had been involved from the start in the editing and publication of these materials, blamed the delay – and eventual failure – on de Vaux's selection of a team unsuited to the quality of work he had planned, as well as relying "on his personal, quasi-patriarchal authority" to ensure the work was promptly done." -- This contradicts itself. It was delayed or promptly done, not both. --Zero 07:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood; according to Vermes, it was de Vaux's reliance on the force of his own personality to speed up the work (as well as the unsuitability of the team he chose) which backfired. That's what led to the delay. In any case, the statement has been altered, and I intend to alter it again. Unfree (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

New issue: 22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence of Para. 1.0, Dates and Contents, reads: " The so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists hidden caches of gold, scrolls, and weapons, is probably the most notorious. ". A popular definition of 'notorious' reads: "Known widely and usually unfavorably; infamous: a notorious gangster; a district notorious for vice." Notorious also has several other negative conotations. I recommend that 'notorious' be replaced by 'controversial' to reduce POV. I propose the sentence be rewritten as follows: "The so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists hidden caches of gold, scrolls, and weapons, is probably one of the most controversial of the scrolls." Comments on this proposed change will be appreciated.

No, quite to the contrary, it isn't a matter of controversy, so much as amazement. What makes the scroll remarkable is the value of the treasure it inventories, over a billion dollars! (See the article, "Copper Scroll".) Perhaps notoriety (in the neutral sense) isn't the best word choice. While I've got the chance, I'd like to defend the non-derogatory usage of "notorious". If the world ceased to recognize words for what they mean, but for what it thought they might hint at, what a dismally misinformed world this would be! Unfree (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

<removed vandalism> dead sea scrolls

I deleted: " There was even a new finding that another of the scrolls has been found deep in the caves of Athens, Greece. This is consistent with knowledge that the Jewish religion actually reached Europe before Constantine." Even if an ancient scroll was found in Athens, it is not revelant to this article unless it has a Dead Sea connection. Anyway, there is no citation given and we need one. --Zero 13:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• There is now a mention of the treasure described in the Copper Scroll, but no substantive discussion. --Peter Kirby 01:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The planet Neptune "is consistent with" Chicago. Of course Judaism spread throughout the Eastern Hemisphere long before Constantine. Centuries before Constantine, and even longer before George Washington. Incidentally, I deleted two repetitions here of a paragraph below, and some vandalism. Unfree (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Treasure

Why isnt there any mention of the treasure that the scrolls spoke of? When they were first discovered the treasure was discredited as a hox but it was later revealed that archaeologists and researchers did this to prevent a treasure hunt. The treasure is supposedly that of the temple, saved before its destruction, if found it would be the greatest archaelogical find in human history. 68.252.132.13

That depends on whether it exists, and if it exists whether

• the treasure is from the temple
• the temple treasure was impressive
• the temple treasure is greater than the Rosetta stone, Terracotta army, Skara Brae

The treasure would undoubtedly be worth more than all of those combined.

Copper Scroll The first of the Dead Sea Scrolls was discovered in 1947, and the famed Copper Scroll - made of pure copper - was found at Qumran in 1952. The Copper Scroll is an inventory - written in Hebrew - of the holy treasures of Solomon's First Temple, treasures hidden before the destruction of that temple by the Babylonians and treasures which have not been seen since.

The Copper Scroll states that a silver [or alabaster?] chest, the vestments of the Cohen Gadol (Hebrew High Priest), gold and silver in great quantities, the Tabernacle of the Lord (the Mishkan) and many treasures were hidden in a desolate valley - under a hill - on its east side, forty stones deep. The Mishkan was a "portable" Temple for the Ark of the Covenant. The writings in the Copper Scroll were confirmed 40 years later in the 1990s through an ancient text found in the introduction to Emeq HaMelekh ("Valley of the King(s)") -- a book published in 1648 in Amsterdam, Holland, by Rabbi Naftali Hertz Ben Ya’acov Elchanon (Rabbi Hertz).

I challenge the assertion that the inventory referred to the treasure of the original, pre-Babylonian Temple, and the hint that it referred to a single cache. It locates and inventories many caches, including at least two among the caves at Qumran, and is most likely contemporaneous with the other scrolls, that is, around two millennia ago. Furthermore, the asserted great "depth" of the treasure was due to a misinterpretation, by Milik, I believe. It actually was a distance, not a depth. Unfree (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Significance

I find the "Significance" section of the page wholly inadequate. In a garbled sentence it says nothing and is very confusing. Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge to adequately alter it, and I believe it ought to be either removed or completely edited. I think a solid sentence like "Unlike many modern theories, the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Bible has not changed significantly from its original form" would stand in for the first part of the sentence. Also, I don't think that "though they do indicate that primitive Christianity was very different than Christianity as it is practiced today" fits in with the rest of the article, as "Interpretations" states that:

"Notably, Michael Baigent's and Richard Leigh's book The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception contains a popularized version of speculations by Robert Eisenman that some scrolls actually describe the early Christian community, characterized as more fundamentalist and rigid than the one portrayed by the New Testament, and that the life of Jesus was deliberately mythicized by Paul, possibly a Roman agent who faked his "conversion" from Saul in order to undermine the influence of anti-Roman messianic cults in the region."

As the theory was purely "speculations by Robert Eisenman" according to the article, could someone clarify and correct "Significance" to reflect whether these are still speculations? If they are, I believe this should be noted in this passage.

--whitti 8 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

• I have edited the "Signficiance" section in a way that should be provisionally acceptable. --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Popularized Theories

Exactly how was Robert Eisenman's theory popular? Exactly who besides those two half-scholars believed or even put credit to Eisenman's crazy theories. James Vanderkam, in the book entitled, " The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls", found so many flaws in these theories. To say it was a popularized theory would be arrogant. It in fact was one of the most denounced theories to be applied to the dead sea scrolls. I mean come on, James the brother of Jesus was the leader of the Essenes? It was the Saudacees who were the sect at Qumran? The Essenes being the sect living at Khirbet Qumran is a popularized theory, not the latter you described. I think you should probably not edit anymore of the writings on this topic, i've seen a couple things wrong with your "editing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addamohara (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Grrr...

Why is it that any articles having to do with the history of religion are the subject of so much controversy and edit wars? I find it very difficult to get any accurate information from Wikipedia on this subject, and frankly, it's getting annoying. You've got inappropriate stuff from fundamentalists on one hand and "minimalists" on the other- not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Maybe this should be left to professionals.

I mean, you don't see this kind of controversy in articles about citrus fruit.

I agree, let's go argue over Paris Hilton's tits instead. Edit war anyone? Yongke 06:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. Usually, people aren't moved to edit an article unless they have some sort of expertise. Religion is one of a handful of areas where non-experts cannot imagine that their personal biases are not borne out by scientific investigation, and so feel entitled to "correct" the misunderstandings of those sadly benighted archaeologists, historians and manuscript scholars who have spent entire careers at mainstream institutions who "have an unreasonable bias against my own intuitions". Most annoying is the resistance to first comprehending the positions of their opposition before deciding to state their case, and the only solution seems to be open abuse towards those who write without bothering to learn the facts of a debate. Honestly, there are people out there who think reading a Lee Strobel book makes them a world authority. 131.172.99.15 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

for what it's worth, at least wikipedia provides a venue for concentrated argument over disputed facts. IMO this is superior to isolated authors writing long-winded articles that are never truly forced to resolve conflicts. I can imagine the wiki conflict resolution process evolving into the definitive account of what constitutes consensus fact. As things stand, crackpots tend to find some author that supports their view and cease their investigation there, reassured that their position has expert support 131.172.99.15 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

To quote the Wiki FAQ: Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints).

What Peter Kirby is suggesting is to remove the "conflicting viewpoints" so that it appears more in line with his understanding of Christianity. I can't agree with that. Kungfucolin (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Its rather obvious: religion is something that a majority of the world is very passionate about. Leaving this to 'professionals' would undoubtedly be against the ethos of Wikipedia. On the issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there really shouldn't be that much contention: they are concrete, historical documents.

--whitti 17:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Citrus fruit is science; anyone can grab a citrus fruit off a store shelf and weigh it, taste it, etc.; the Dead Sea Scrolls, while partly archaeological science because they were excavated and subject to carbon dating, are texts interpreted to get any useful info out of them, and so there will be disagreement. The most noteable disagreement, in the case of the Scrolls, is whether they were written by Essenes. But what it is it that you (poster above Whitti) are referring to in particular? If you brought attention to the particulars, it could be fixed. --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies, I am a novice, a complete novice, in everything. I read that the book of Isaiah foretold the destruction of Babylon by King Cyrus and the coming of Jesus, written in 732 B.C.E. I need to ask if the Dead Sea scroll was genuinely carbon dated and if the complete book or which small fragments of Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea scrolls. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Isaiah"

• At least two copies of Isaiah were found at Qumran, one fragmentary and another more complete. I don't know offhand if these particular ones were carbon dated. But, since the oldest scrolls are 2nd century BCE, the dates of the copies tell us nothing about whether Isaiah was "written in 732 B.C.E." (such precision!) or foretold the coming of Jesus (that's POV). --Peter Kirby 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Somebody just deleted a chunk of information regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls and their significance to the LDS church. That deletion is not discussed. Can the info be salvaged, where should it be put? --Peter Kirby 02:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Date and Contents

I found a link that I thought was very interesting and fills out some dating facts but I'm unsure of the accepted "wiki way" to reference it. Could someone in the know add it to this section please? The link is to the University of Arizona Physics Department [1] . SOPHIA 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for better understanding Jesus and the Gospels is a controversial topic. In this chapter, we have emphasized that there is no direct relationship between Jesus and the scrolls, and none of these ancient documents was written by or for Christians as far as we know. Attempts have been made to find direct connections, but in many cases these are speculative, sensational, or bizarre (e.g., John Allegro and the sacred mushroom, Barbara Thiering's peshar technique, and the scrolls and the New Age Jesus). - "The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity," by James VanderKam and Peter Flint (Hardcover - Dec 1, 2002).

Other theories

"There is also writing about the Nephilim related to the Book of Enoch." ... I think this paragraph should have a link to this, "Nephilim" and the Book of Enoch along with a brief description. Without that the reader is left wondering what significance this statement has.

...To be honest, I guess I'm talking about me as the reader...but there must be others.

---

--8r13n 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand this paragraph on "Other theories" (and I am a native speaker of English :-)). Here's what it currently says:

Because they are frequently described as important to the history of the Bible, the scrolls are surrounded by a wide range of conspiracy theories. There is also writing about the Nephilim related to the Book of Enoch. Theories with more support among scholars include Qumran as a military fortress or a winter resort; see above (Abegg et al 2002).

First, what does it mean to say that "the scrolls are surrounded by a wide range of conspiracy theories." That there have been conspiracy theories about their discovery, or about their origin? Modern day conspiracy theories, I assume?

Second, who wrote about the "Nephilim"? Is this supposed to be one of the conspiracy theories, or something else? And what is the relationship to the Book of Enoch: the conspiracy theories relate to that book, or that book talks about the Nephilim? (If I'm not mistaken, the Nephilim are also mentioned in Genesis.)

Finally, what is the relationship between the theories mentioned in the last sentence and the scrolls? Military fortesses and resorts have a need to store religious scrolls, or what? McSwell (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

How did the Masoretic text, come to be mentioned in this article? The oldest surviving version of Hebrew scripture, actually what Christians refer to as the 'Old Testament', is the Codex Vaticanus, circa 4th Cen. of the common era. The text of the Codex V. is sometimes referred to as 'the Septuagint'. The context of the dead sea scrolls, when translated, seems to be close to 'the Septuagint', more so than the Masoretic text of the 9th C.--CorvetteZ51 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus is Greek scripture not Hebrew scripture, however the text did call for a bit of clarification. Feel free to let me know what you think of the present version. Hemmingsen 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I read a NYT article from 2001 I think that said the New Jerusalem Bible would be updated with permission from the Vatican to include Dead Sea Scrolls material. I have not seen any recently published version of this bible. Does anybody know if this material has filtered into any of the published bibles of today, and how much of it, etc? Perhaps much of the material and it's meaning is still under debate. Thanks. 22 February 2006

---

THE CHINESE CONNECTION An article by Neil Altman with the above title was published in the Toronto Star (Canada) on 04 November 2006. The article can be found at this link. (For information, the URL embedded in the link is http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1162421410861) Perhaps someone with more experience contributing to Wikipedia would know whether this information should be added to the main article. Thanks 08 November 2006

• I edited the text to move the 'Chinese' connection to the section on Date, since its presence in the introduction seems to give it undo prominence, expecially since, according to my reading of the article, only one person currently is making that claim, and that is the writer of the article. I also removed the word 'significant' from 'significant recent findings' to make it NPOV. Personally I don't think much of the article, for two reasons: 1. It seems to be a minority viewpoint, perhaps an extreme minority one, and might not be appropriate for inclusion given the rules of Wikipedia, but I am an expert on neither the rules nor the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2. According to the account of his Chinese-Jewish contact, his family came to China circa 500 BCE, so I am not sure why the Scrolls having a Chinese connection would necessarily make them form around 500 CE, but, again, my reading of that would be OR, so I am leaving it in unless someone has a source that knows more about this.Felgerkarb 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with leaving Altman and his "Chinese connection" in the article. I made the mistake of citing that same news report, only to find Altman isn't considered academically qualified on the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact some real experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls are incensed at Altman for this article and others, saying the letters are Arabic. Why perpetuate Altman nonsense?--Chrisbak 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems like nonsene to me. I am not knowledgable enough to comment on it without approriate references to back me up. I guess it depends if you think it is either 'doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use tag to ask for source verification.' or 'doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.'

I personally have no problem removing it, but I was not ther person who originally added it. I will move it to the Talk section pending further debate.

It is here for reference and discussion:

However according to a 2006 news article by Neil Altman, a US writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some recent findings suggest some of the Dead Sea Scrolls may have a Chinese connection and date after AD 500.[1] Altman writes that especially the Chinese symbol for God dating after Christ possibly explain the time frame of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their place of origin. Chinese Central Asia has been identified as the area from which the Chinese symbol for God in the scrolls came, and a scholar has identified other Chinese characters in the scrolls. This Chinese connection suggests a date for the Dead Sea Scrolls of no earlier than AD 100 and perhaps 700 years or more later.

24.126.72.104 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

I'm surprised someone hasn't mocked up a map of where these scrolls were found. Exactly how close to the Dead Sea were these caves? David Bergan 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Book of Nehemiah

According to the Date and contents section, the scrolls contain fragments from the Hebrew Bible, from all the books except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah. However according to 25 Fascinating Facts About the Dead Sea Scrolls it is all "except for the book of Esther". Library of Congress materials relating to the Qumran Library also has all "except Esther".

Does anyone know the status of the Book of Nehemiah? Hemmingsen 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Temple Scroll

The Spring 2006 issue of Christian History & Biography (Issue 90) has a snippet on page 9 saying that the Temple scroll is on view for the first time outside of Israel in the Cleveland, Ohio at the Maltz Museum through October 22, 2006. We don't have a separate article on this scroll, so I'm letting you all know here in case you want to do anything about it. GRBerry 02:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC) meow

Biblical Documents Written Before AD 100

I'm fairly certain the Septuagint was written before AD 100 and contains most of the Christian Old Testament so the opening paragraph is seemingly incorrect in saying that the DSS is "practically the only known surviving Biblical documents written before AD 100." It seems to put too much emphasis on the DSS. I think a mention of the Septuagint is relevant here.

Presumably the sentence is referring to extant manuscripts - there's no mss of the Septuagint earlier than the DSS. PiCo 07:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Essay-Entry Template

This article, though full of citations and good information, reads like an essay. Some cite templates, rewording of [[WP:OR|OR] sounding paragraphs, and copyediting would go a long way. /Blaxthos 00:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of documents

"Roughly 825-872" is a pretty strange number. Why so specific on the upper end? Why don't we know how many there are? --Masamage 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The scrolls were found as fragments and then pieced back together. Moreover, some are in private hands. --199.106.52.24 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a wording something like "estimates range from 825 to 872". Otherwise it makes more sense to say "roughly 850". 131.172.99.15 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

The Content of the Scrolls

To the editors: I won't pretend to be an expert on the topic, but the article contains barely any information about the actual content of the scrolls and how this differs from traditional religious and historical text. In fact none of it is written from a religious perspective. Perhaps that should be a new heading? At least a serious expansion to the "significance" section? There is a lot more to the scrolls than just which caves they were found in and who wrote them. Wikiuser7 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem Theory

To the editors: I have removed Thesultan's insertion of the word "small" before "group," and his remark to the effect that this group is "outside the mainstream." The language Thesultan has inserted is not neutral, but merely expresses his own wishful thinking, as no polls have been taken to determine how big or small this group is or whether it is or is not today in the "mainstream." Thesultan has previously inserted defamatory comments onto the wikipedia article on Norman Golb and has now been blocked from doing so. He clearly bears a grudge against Golb and others who hold the Jerusalem theory, and should be blocked from making offensive and misleading changes in this article as well.Critical Reader 05:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To the editors: I have written nothing defamatory in this article. I certainly have written nothing misleading! The truth is that I wrote nothing defamatory in the Golb article either. However, after my experience here in another discussion with Critical Reader, where he is able to hijack an entry with an agenda even as editors are watching, I have decided that my one week experiment on this site will come to an end. I simply cannot conclude that any entry on this site would be accurate or unbiased. Thanks for the experiment and goodbye.

Once again, sign your name so people can see where your statements end. If inserting an offensive tirade, entitled "Self-Promotion" and dealing with the presumed identities of internet bloggers, into a biography of a living person doesn't amount to defamation, then I need to learn the English language all over again. You will undoubtedly be back with a different pseudonym, and I hope others will help me to keep these entries relatively civil.Critical Reader 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Elior

The article currently has contradictory statements about Rachel Elior's view of the origins of the scrolls. The Jerusalem libraries section says she endorses Golb's theory, while the Temple section says she endorses the Temple theory (which Golb disagrees with). Does anyone know what her actual position is? Timotheos 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

She accepts Golb's rationale for rejecting the traditional theory and his view that the Scrolls came from Jerusalem. She does not deny that he may be right about a plurality of libraries, nor does she specifically argue against that conclusion, although she herself focuses on scrolls she believes came from the Temple. Her stance on the distinction is not 100% clear. Golb himself clearly admits that many of the Scrolls may have come from the Temple, although he thinks Rengstorf's theory cannot account for the multiplicity of doctrines found in the texts. The Temple theory is really a sub-class of the Jerusalem theory and in my view the article should be re-organized to reflect that, rather than giving the impression of a scattering of different, unrelated views. I suggest structuring the article into three portions: Qumran-sectarian theory [including both Essene view and Sadducee view]; Jerusalem theory [including both multiple-libraries view and Temple view]; other theories [Christian connections, conspiracies, etc.]. I have introduced this structure, aware of the risk that there might now be another edit war, because supporters of the Qumran-sectarian theory have been trying to emphasize the "disunity" of their opponents, despite the fact that the Qumran-sectarian theory itself has many variants (some of them believe it was a third, unidentified sect, some of them believe the sect lived all over the Dead Sea region, etc., issues that could all be dealt with in the Qumran-sectarian portion of the article). Critical Reader 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I have also made some minor edits to the Jerusalem libraries and Temple sections to try and clarify the matter. Hopefully this will not lead to a massive edit war.Critical Reader 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the rearrangement Critical Reader has made to the Origins section is helpful, and Elior's position has been clarified. Thanks. Timotheos 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

San Diego Museum material

I have deleted one paragraph which was obviously an advertisement for the exhibit pure and simple--a clear violation of wikipedia standards--and I have inserted basic information on the controversy concerning this exhibit. Either the exhibit material comes out entirely, or the controversy should be mentioned in an appropriately neutral fashion which can of course be discussed.Critical Reader 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the DSS wiki article?

It seems that this article has become the home to a personal 'edit war' between CRITICALREADER (and his/her IP aliases) and THESULTAN (and his/her IP aliases. I say, banish them both and then get Prof. Golb AND the SDNHM off the page. At least put them at the bottom, and not in the opening few paragraphs. Why is the SDNHM placing ads in the wiki article? And how is it that Prof. Golb is mentioned before de Vaux, Allegro, Milik, Cross, Sanders, Strugnell, etc., etc. The article is a disaster! Instead of mentioning why they are important, telling the history of the scrolls, and THEN the modern controversy, you two are cutting each other's throats at the top of the page. Lose the polemic, and let's get back to actual scholarship. Prof. Golb has his place, as does the SDNHM, but NEITHER of them belong at the top of the article! IsraelXKV8R 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you entirely, I don't think any of that material belonged there at all, but that guy plunked in the advertisement for the museum--what was I to do, let it stand? As you will see in my comment directly above, I stated that it should either come out or be neutral--I was hoping someone else would take it all out, and you have now done so--thank you.Critical Reader 05:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

Someone asked me to take a look at this article. I have no particular knowledge of the scrolls beyond that of the average editor, although I have always had a bit of an interest in archaeology, so I am neutral as far as the various theories are concerned. IsraelXKV8R raised a good point, so I have reorganized the article in a way that I believe makes it more useful and readable. The details of the scrolls and their discovery really should come first, not only because they give readers the bread and butter info on the subject, but also because I think those sections will be less controversial. I deleted the promotional reference to the current San Diego exhibit (which was incidentally added to the article by someone using the museum's computer system) because this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertisements or notices of limited duration. I tried to group together all of the various origin theories and controversies without changing them. I merged the bit on Golb from the article's lead into the existing section on his theory. Please help smooth out any rough transitions I have left behind. I am otherwise unconcerned with the content of the article; I'm just trying to make it more useful to the world. -- But|seriously|folks  02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you have done entirely (see my note directly above).Critical Reader 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this reorg is a good change. Timotheos 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of document

At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD.

The document itself, or the parchment it was inscribed upon? Is there some fundamental reason why the parchment and its inscription are necessarily contemporaneous, or is this such a small quibble in the face of vastly larger quibbles that no qualified scholar brings it up? But still, it seems to me that carbon dating dates the materials of the document, not the document itself. Furthermore, at this point in the article, the term document is not yet properly defined. I'm still thinking in terms of crumbled and bleached fragments of parchment that might or might not jigsaw together (by physical means or textual means) into a cohesive narrative. What does document mean? Hide of a single sheep? Pen of a single hand? Telling of a single narrative arc? MaxEnt 07:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Carbon date of a document doesn't pretend to mean anything other than the number you get when you analyze a fragment of the material. If there is such a thing as a consensus date of composition, it probably involves additional (e.g. paleographic)analysis and rather a lot more argument and disagreement. A carbon date is at least a relatively neutral fact, even if it doesn't suit your purposes. 131.172.99.15 08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

citing an authority or a consensus is not proof. if you cannot understand the contents of the documents you should not take what others say for granted before doing a lot of reading (a lot of reading is not just one book). carbon dating is not convincing, that is why it is calibrated with dendrochronology. but dendrochronological samples for that area are very scarce, and therefore the calibration can yield huge mistakes. to defend carbon dating with paleography is circular reasoning, read above what i have posted about the so called paleographic proof. (sorry for the grammar errors, i don't really care that much about that in this specific section).

Corrected Distances of Caves from the Site

I corrected distances of caves from site in the 'Discovery' section. Please crossreference Google Earth, as well as Yizhar Hirschfeld Qumran in Context p.17; Jodi Magness Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls p.1; and the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land entry on 'Qumran' p.1235 for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talk • contribs) 00:41, August 25, 2007 (UTC) IsraelXKV8R 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreement with Masoretic texts

The significance section states:

"Although some of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not."

I would like to see the list of manuscripts that differ significantly either listed here or detailed in another entry or referenced to a source that I can read about these differences.

ThomHehl 09:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to read about those too! Kungfucolin (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of The Forbidden Books

It is up for deletion as an article on the grounds that is is a blatant advert for a book.

As far as DSS scholarship goes, there have been no copies of gospels, canonical or otherwise, discovered at Qumran or among documents comprising the DSS. —Pre7ceding unsigned comment added by IsraelXKV8R (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And is now deleted. IsraelXKV8R 17:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Doing NPOV tag cleanup. Insertion of an NPOV tag must be accompanied by a posting in the discussion page stating clearly and concisely what the editor feels is wrong and how it can be made better. I'm not involving myself in the editing of this topic - if the tag is returned with accompanying discussion allowing dispute and resolution from other editors, then fine. This is a drive-by tagging and I'm removing it. Direct discussion either to this page or my talk page. Jjdon (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy?

Most of this article is the same as: this site , who copied who? Tremello22 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I went back all the way back to December 2006 to compare the two article and I am certain due to the development of the "Caves" section and such things as Trevor instead of Trever and unaccessible instead of inaccessible that www.spiritrestoration.org plagiarized the Wikipedia article around March 2007 giving no credit to Wikipedia. Stealing by a "Christian" website which asks for donations is unchristian. There were years of work put into this article by many people, and they didn't even give Wikipedia as the source. Can anything be done about them not sourcing Wikipedia? I find this disgusting!!! I have only have two DSS books and was going to add what references I could until I saw the above question. Now that I have found who stole from whom, I'll start adding references. I guess they didn't read the Ten Commandments (i.e. Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal"). Can anything be done about this lack of a stated source of their use of this content without referencing Wikipedia?

And why do very few people source their additions? They have the books, so why not site them. It's not hard.Jason3777 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

CE vs. AD

just so we're all clear, the standard academic and scientific notation for references to years is ce (common era) and bce (before common era). ad and bc are not standard scientific references. the use of bce and ce is not a slight against jesus, christianity, or any form of faith, it is simply the scientific way of referring a year. ad/bc implies a christian perspective, and then opens the door for a muslim to argue that we should date things according to the islamic calendar (which makes today the 12th of rajab, ah 1429) or a jew to date the article according to the jewish calendar (which makes today the 13th of tamuz, 5768).

ce and bce are the standard, neutral designations, and should be employed in articles. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

btw - the WP:ERAS says nothing about which should be used, only that articles with an overtly christian/theological theme can take bc/ad. since the dss are both jewish and xn, and there are two religious ways to signify them, we should stick to the scientific norm. these are archaeological artifacts, studied by archaeologists. if you want to discuss the dss in a class at church, make the conversion to bc/ad. the math is fairly simple. ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this page after editing. I am new to editing Wikipedia and apologize for any mistakes made on editing or commenting. I would like to bring up a few points on this.

1.) The AD / BC naming convention has been around for millennia. As such is widely understood and used in many, many more pieces of literature than CE/BCE.

2.) regardless of changing the name from AD / BC to CE / BCE the time frame is still revolving around the same person. The only difference is that now it just doesn't make sense as to what started or constitutes the "Comment Era". If the definition of CE is the start of Christianity then why even remove AD and BC to start with?

3.) The Wikipedia community seems to have decided on this already as AD and BC. BCE-CE_Debate

Tehombre (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) TehOmbre

I got into this a few weeks ago. Basically, Wikipedia says that each is acceptable. The only issue here is comprehension and consistency. If a page uses one system, don't add another. And there's no need to fight. Whatever it is, leave it. Since both are understandable, it's a non-issue.Tim (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

tehombre, a couple of things.

1) kings james english has been around much longer than modern english as well, but we don't use that system anymore. Just as with bc/ad, science no longer uses these designations, opting for bc/ce instead.

2) the problem with bc/ad is that it also does not accurately refer to jesus. jesus was born during the reign of herod the great, who died in 4 bce. plus, the pope forgot to count the year zero. so jesus was born at least 5 bc/bce historically. one reason for ditching the bc/ad designation is that it did not accurately reflect dating of jesus. so, rather than re-date everything, science used the same system and changed the designation to 'before common era' and 'common era'. this way, jesus can be born somewhere between 7-5 bce, and we don't have to change all of the numbers.

3) read the wiki article again. it chooses neither, and says that bce/ce is the preferred scientific standard.

teclontz,

the purpose of changing it to bce/ce is to make scientific pages uniform. we can't just leave it. we're trying to make things on wiki uniform, like a respected encyclopedia...IsraelXKV8R (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, oh I'm all for consistency, but I got my hand smacked on another article standardizing to ce/bce, and was shown the eras page. The gist is, pick one and use it, but don't fight about it.Tim (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel, The transition from King James English to modern English was the evolution of language, not a switch. The way I understand CE and BCE is that they have the same value so your point confuses me on #2. It still doesn't change the basis of the calendars creation. And on the last point you say the article doesn't chose a standard but chooses one ?? I was referring to the poll where people voted.

Tim, I agree no one should be fighting about it but I think it's worth the discussion. Maybe as a compromise, list both?

Thanks for both of your input. --Tehombre (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my PERSONAL preference is context. In a Christian only article, ad and bc are far more appropriate. In a trans-religion subject like the Dead Sea Scrolls, ce and bce are far more appropriate. I wouldn't list both. If I had to pick one, I would definitely pick ce and bce HERE, as a means of reducing potential conflict. But that's just my personal preference.Tim (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Israel to Display the Dead Sea Scrolls on the Internet

FWIW, the beginning date of the process to display the scrolls on the internet: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/middleeast/27scrolls.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(P.B.U.H.)

I think the line right under 1.6 raises some interesting issues. It's the line that states: "Also Israel had placed sanction on the scrolls which are believed to mention prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H)."

The obvious things are first. The line, if included at all, should appear in the "Controversies" section, and not randomly under "Cave 11." A citation is needed, as are a few grammar corrections (including a period after the "H" in "P.B.U.H."). I would also like to see some links to articles referencing that specific controversy or broader related topics.

Despite the information itself seeming relatively pertinent (assuming it can be cited), the line seems a bit non-sequider given the overt continuity of the article, and would need some explanation to substantiate it as a standing issue. I would say this applies to relation of the Dead Sea scrolls to any ethnic or religious group outside of a Hebrew or Judaic context (i.e. Christian; Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints). That said, I think the element could be a viable topical issue surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as a noteworthy contention within Muslim apologetics.

In terms of principle, I would discourage overhead deletion of the line, if it can be referenced. Given the current socio-politcal atmosphere, open scholarly or even theological debate between Muslim and Non-Muslim groups is increasingly difficult. This results in limited understanding in the academic world into the rationale of Islamic thinking, as well disempowering the individual in Muslim society, due to both ingroup and outgroup biases. Especially since a key anthropological contingent within Muslim apologetics is the intentional and natural corruption of Abrahamic scriptures before the time of Muhammad, this deserves some attention as one aspect of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Finally, some academic issues.

I'm really curious to hear your opinions on the "P.B.U.H." (Peace Be Upon Him) used at the mention of the Prophet Muhammed. Using this line as an exemplar, I am interested as to the precedence and propriety of language that is exclusive to the qualification, belief, or universal view of an individual, religion, or ethnicity. Would "P.B.U.H." be deemed as biased terminology? A non-standardized title? Or could it qualify as an accepted title or moniker for the man within context? Ought use of such language affect legitimacy of an article among scholars? Rather, would the dismissal of such language emphasize established academia as exclusive to a Western or Judeo/Christian-derived mindset, thus limiting Muslim or other individuals from participating in scholarly dialogue in good faith? 武福希 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希.

I think it is vandalism (wikipedia article are vulnerable to such vandalisms). I have removed it. Regardless, according to wikipedia rules, one can not use P.B.U.H. --AAA765 (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, is there any foundation to the claim? or is it simply urban legend or propaganda? Also, in terms of academic writing, what are the standards of similarly exclusive terminology that doesn't carry the stigma that P.B.U.H. does? 武福希 (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希

I find it unlikely that there is a foundation to the claim; it is possibly a legend or propaganda. And there is no way to know since we can't find the person who added it. The guidelines of Wikipedia tells us that when you see something that looks suspicious and is not sourced, just remove it.

I'd like to clarify a few things: Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia like other encyclopedias. It is not written by experts, even though experts can (and sometimes do) contribute to it as anonymous editors, there is no guarantee that every one who edits Wikipedia is an expert. There are always both vandals & knowledgeable people of good faith. If a sentence is not sourced, it can be false or not entirely accurate. It is exactly like asking a friend (who seems to know certain stuff) about an issue; it can be a good start but it is not a good place to ultimately rely on. Even when a sentence is sourced; in case it is rephrased, there is always a chance that it is accidentally or deliberative misrepresented. Not that it always happens, it doesn't but it can happen because wikipedia articles are not seriously peer-reviewed. The idea is that if something is wrong, someone else will correct it in the future.

Regarding your last question, I don't know if I understand it correctly, but academic books do use terms like "Prophet Muhammad" or "Jesus Christ"; we don't use either in wikipedia. "P.B.U.H" is neither used by academics nor by wikipedians. Not sure if I have answered your question...--AAA765 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You basically answered my questions. I understand the mechanics you described about Wikipedia. My basic perspective of Wikipedia is as a grassroots movement that can potentially affect scholarly dialogue- one idealist's road to social change, I suppose. That's why I'm so interested in addressing issues of scholarship within Wiki: move the Wikis, move the scholars, move the world. 武福希 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)武福希

Capitalize "scrolls"

"Dead Sea Scrolls" is a proper noun, as it refers to a certain set of scrolls. Consider this. If you took a piece of paper, rolled it up, tied it with a string, and took it to, or tossed it into, the Dead Sea, you could create a Dead Sea scroll (common noun), but not a Dead Sea Scroll (proper noun), so for "Dead Sea Scroll" to redirect to "Dead Sea scroll" is backwards. Unfree (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

lol. agreed. i am in no position to comment on the use of capitalization. lol IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

Can anyone confirm the Wall Street Journal quotation, or "The Torah According to the Essenes"? Unfree (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, museum exhibit controversy

Will user "XKV8R" please abstain from removing the newly inserted section, based on published sources that easily pass wikipedias standards?

I do not know what ongoing "sockpuppet" case XKV8R is referring to. XKV8R (see his userpage) is Robert Cargill, who was personally involved in creating the San Diego exhibit discussed in the published National Post correspondence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

actually, this entire attempt to include ng's criticisms in the dss article has already been addressed, leading to the content being removed, and also leading to several nyu ip addresses and aliases being linked to a sock/meat puppet campaign to promote/defend ng and criticize dss exhibitions. are we really going to go through this every new exhibit? i'll tell you what - let's do the 3 revert thing, get some admins in here, show them the already decided case, and be done with it. the material is an ad for the museum, and therefore does not belong in the main article. your multi-line rebuttal linking to all sort of ng postings also does not belong in the body of the article, since it is highly tangental to the dss exhibitions, not the dss themselves. but of course, this has already been debated and decided. must we do it again?? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1) I am a student at NYU. There are over 20,000 students here and we have one of the largest Judaica programs in the country. I don't know what sockpuppet you're referring to but it's not me. I was led to this controversy in the National Post by an article and comments on the Bibbia Blogs site. Please supply references to a sockpuppet case so we can see who this is and if the case is a current one, because I can't find it.

2) The material not an "ad" for a museum, it specifically concerns a controversy about the presentation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in museum exhibits, as reported in the National Post. Therefore, these National Post articles are perfectly germane to an article about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

3) You, XKV8R, are personally involved in the controversy, since you created a film which was shown at the San Diego exhibit, criticism of which is referenced in the National Post articles. Your bias is revealed by your reference to "one scholar's grievance," rather than "one scholar's criticism."

Therefore, you have a conflict of interest. What gives you the right to eliminate a section dealing with such an important matter?

4) I don't know what multi-line rebuttal you are referring to. The only items I have posted are the added section on the controversy about the Dead Sea Scroll museum exhibits and the note directly above (posted from 216.165.95.64, before I signed up with wikipedia).

5) Conclusion: the ongoing museum exhibit controversy, reported on in a major Canadian newspaper, is perfectly relevant, and by no means "tangential," to this article about the texts that are at the center of the controversy. Therefore I am undoing XKV8R's deletion of the added section.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

so is it rachel or emily? lol. again, this issue has been addressed by wiki admins. it's all here in the talk page and in the archives. that said, you're talking about sources about exhibitions and blogs about controversy surrounding the exhibits, not the dss themselves. this has already been judged and settled. i shall continue to monitor the article and revert it to its initial state. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

notes to wiki admins re: claims that aliases are being used to "promote views of scholar" in wiki articles involving the dead sea scrolls

attention wiki admins,

unfortunately, the meat/sockpuppetry from nyu promoting the views of a particular scholar are arising again. this time (as last), the user has again used an ip address: 216.165.95.64 traced to nyu to attempt to post materials promoting the views of Norman Golb on wiki articles concerning Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. just as last time, the subject then employed a single purpose account utilizing 'first last' alias tracing back to nyu.

this is not new. around oct-nov of 2007, this same issue arose surrounding a wiki alias named User_talk:Critical_Reader. the case was submitted to wiki admins who investigated and found this to be a series of sock puppets utilizing aliases to promote controversy surrounding a single scholar.

some of the alias used are as follows:

1) “Critical Reader” User_talk:Critical_Reader (created Oct. 5, 2006)

2) “Ethical concern” User_talk:Ethical_Concern (created 10:30, Aug. 1, 2007)

3) “Harold Milton” User_talk:Harold_Milton (created 21:32, Nov. 16, 2007)

4) “Philip Kirby” User_talk:Phillip_Kirby (created 14:12, Nov. 19, 2007)

5) “David Saunderfeld” User_talk:David_Saunderfeld (created 19:02, Nov. 21, 2007)

6) “Jacob Stein” User_talk:Jacob_Stein (created 10:10, Nov. 24, 2007)

7) “Myriamyst” User_talk:Myriamyst (created 20:39, Nov. 29, 2007)

8) “Extratheologian” User_talk:Extratheologian (created 12:48, November 29, 2007)

(many of these aliases have been since deleted/purged, but the archives and histories are, of course, present to you on the admin end. or see: here.)

the above matter was referred to dispute resolution and adjudicated, resulting in the sockpuppets being banished.

i shall continue to revert the attempts to interject the previously adjudicated controversies. should you have any questions, i'd be happy to provide additional information offline (wiki message me) in the form of ip addresses cross-listed against email headers sent to colleagues containing the same ip addresses, with the same content, but different, yet known aliases/names, all pointing back to nyu.

you could also examine the sockpuppetry case archived here, which is available to you as admins. (you are also welcome to wiki message me for the ticket # if needed.)

please feel free to message me with questions. until then, i'll attempt to revert/manage the extraneous attempts to interject tangential links. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Attention wikipedia administrators:

The case XKV8R is referring to seems to date from 2007 -- almost 18 months ago -- and I don't know any of those people. If I'm going to be treated as a "sockpuppet" just because I'm writing from NYU, then that means no student at NYU can contribute anything on the Dead Sea Scrolls unless it meets XKV8R's approval. Is that the rule here? I didn't even know about those sockpuppet names, and for all I know they may not even be at NYU anymore. Are there any other wiki "sockpuppets" writing from NYU about this topic now?

XKV8R's real goal here is to delete the section I added to this article, about a controversy -- not "tangential," but perfectly germane to an article about the Dead Sea Scrolls -- surrounding exhibits of the Dead Sea Scrolls. See the National Post articles that I cite in the section, as well as the Wall Street Journal and Jewish Week articles. Incidentally, I am not "promoting" anyone's views, I have merely inserted information about a controversy reported on in the National Post. I have not taken sides in the controversy.

XKV8R, however, as indicated on his own wikipedia userpage and in the wikipedia article about his film, was involved in preparing material used in the controversial exhibits in question. Therefore, he seems to be using this old sockpuppet case as a pretext to prevent readers of this wikipedia article from finding out about a controversy in which he himself is involved. With all due respect, this is abusive. What gives an interested party the right to control the contents of this article?

I will continue to put the relevant information from the National Post back in, until XKV8R gives me a rational explanation why it shouldn't be included.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with me. the case has already been adjudicated and it was determined that ng's and the alias' criticisms of the exhibitions are not germane. see above. wiki admins have the cross-list ip info. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1) With all due respect, this has everything to do with you. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Qumran, we read about your film shown at the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit which is exactly what the controversy is about. You are trying to prevent me from inserting a section into this article describing a current controversy in which your film is involved. Therefore you have a conflict of interest.

Note: I have not "criticized" any exhibitions, nor am I an "alias." All I have done is create a perfectly germane section in this article describing a controversy reported on in a major newspaper, the National Post (but see also the Wall Street Journal and Jewish Week articles). I have taken no one's side in this controversy.

2) I don't know anything about these aliases, but I don't see any "adjudicated case" dealing with this controversy and stating that it's "tangential." Please refer to a specific wikipedia adjudication of that issue. It's hard to see how a controversy dealing with Dead Sea Scroll exhibits, reported on at length in at least one major newspaper, is not germane to an article on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

3) The "case" you are referring to seems to date from 2007. I am unaware of any news coverage of a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit controversy dating from then. Perhaps the issue involved back then had to do with lack of adequate sourcing? Therefore we have a new "case" here, involving the National Post coverage of this issue. The National Post items are clearly germane to this article and I have every right to add the section.

Hence I will continue to undo your deletion of my contribution to this article, unless wikipedia administrators decide the controversy over museum exhibitions of the Dead Sea Scrolls is not germane to the Dead Sea Scrolls.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

once again, since you claim that you 'don't know' what this is all about, let me explain it: see above.

if you have issues, go get an admin, and they will re-examine this case. of course, i'll send them your emails, and they will, once again, see that this is the same thing all over again. but nice try...

go get an admin, make your case, and let them decide. until then, i'll revert. and i shall revert from this point forward with a simple 'asked and answered'. you understand legal objections, no?IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

TO WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS: I have sent no emails. I do not know what he is talking about. Any "emails" he says I sent are fake or are private correspondence between him and someone else. I will continue to insert this section into the article until it is adjudicated on the merits. I have now rewritten the section to remove any pretext for accusing me of "promoting" anyone's point of view.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

reverted. asked and answered. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reinserted section as explained above.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

reverted. asked and answered. now, we have 3 reversions in a 24 hour period. now you can file a complaint with wiki admins and get them to come and arbitrate this case. so go ahead. go the the admins and have them come and arbitrate. let's see what they say. fair, no?IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, you are the one who, despite your conflict of interest, keeps removing a perfectly germane section I have inserted into this article. If you have a problem with it, go contact the administrators yourself. They will see that you are unfairly removing my section without even previously discussing it. I hope they will have the decency to see that your accusations are trumped up to prevent any information about this controversy in which you are involved from coming out.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

since the only people who are reading this are you and i, a few admins, and a few other interested parties, i'm content to just go back and forth. it's annoying, but when has that not been the case? lol. of course, you're not about to go get an admin to review this, because you know that they know what we both know. lol.IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about; if you have time, contact the administrators yourself, I would hope they will have the sense to see through your charade. I have a paper to prepare that is due on Friday and I'm not going to get involved in this nonsense. In the meantime, you are violating wikipedia policy by removing the perfectly germane section I've added to this article without discussion and adjudication. When I see you've deleted my section, I will undo your deletion. If a vandal deletes it, I will reinsert it.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

no need. asked and answered. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For the both of you: If you keep warring back-and-forth on the article, you will end up blocked from editing. Since you're now both aware that there's a minimum 24 hour block involved, further edit-warring may well result in a block of even longer duration. If you would, consider editing a different subject area for a while, preferably where the other doesn't edit. Thanks. Kylu (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

thanx! IsraelXKV8R (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a new section on the controversy, slightly modified from the previous one to remove any possibility that it be seen as an advertisement for a museum or exhibition. I hope this improvement will satisfy IsraelXKV8R.

IsraelXKV8R, please discuss without removing this section, which I wrote and added to this article in good faith.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Content suggestion

You've both left notes on my talkpage, indicating that there are deeper issues at work here, and you're both apparently quite interested in improving the article. If you can discuss things here, perhaps make a talkpage subpage (Talk:Dead Sea scrolls/draft perhaps?) to draft out a replacement section (again, assuming we're following our important site-wide policies like maintaining a neutral point of view and making sure we cite only reliable sources), perhaps you two can develop a compromise that leaves the article in a more informative and neutral state?

If not, and you're both unwilling to do so, it may be best to cease the editing on the article and explore other dispute resolution options. I'm a personal fan of the Mediation Cabal, myself.

Just keep in mind that the sooner you both come to a compromise, the less likely it is that the case ends up before the Arbitration Committee. They're a bunch of really nice folks and all, but essentially it's their job to take disputes and determine a way to resolve them in such a manner that it maximally assists the encyclopedia while minimally making you happy. Frankly, your best chances are if you manage to develop a compromise solution that gives the largest amount of neutral information to the reader.

Thanks for listening to my tl;dr. Kylu (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely to this procedure. I don't know anything about talkpages but I'm happy to have the discussion there or here. All I ask from IsraelXKV8R is, please discuss without removing what I wrote. Here is the section as I wrote it, and any proposed changes by IsraelXKV8R would be welcome. I will also post this at the link opened by Kylu, which appears to be a talk-page :)

Controversy involving recent and upcoming exhibitions

In recent years, exhibitions of the Dead Sea Scrolls have become the subject of controversy. For example, a National Post article entitled "Controversy surrounds exhibit of Dead Sea Scrolls" states: "The Royal Ontario Museum could find itself unearthing old controversies when it opens its $3-million, would-be blockbuster Dead Sea Scrolls exhibition next June." The article explains that a "history professor in the U.S. has accused an earlier, related project in San Diego of deliberate bias, scholarly incompetence and [has] suggest[ed] that its curator, who is also assembling the ROM exhibition, was unqualified for the job." The article indicates that University of Chicago historian Norman Golb "attacked the San Diego show by circulating a 24-page critique of the exhibition catalogue highlighting what he called 'a great many factual errors and unprovable assertions presented as truths.'"

In a letter published in the National Post, Michael Hager, director of the San Diego Natural History Museum, defends the quality of that museum's exhibit, stating that the "ideas presented in the San Diego Dead Sea scrolls exhibition were thoroughly researched by a team of accredited biblical scholars, with several alternative theories for their origin presented." In another letter also published in the same newspaper, Golb states that the "controversy now unfolding about the scrolls arises out of the fact that the debate between the two salient theories of Scroll origins -- the Qumran-Essene theory and the theory of Jerusalem origin -- is featured in a current exhibit at the Jewish Museum in New York. By contrast, most museums in past exhibits have largely concealed this debate from the public. The Royal Ontario Museum, which has a reputation for scientific integrity, now is faced with the problem of presenting a balanced and accurate exhibition." The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers reported that the scholarly debate over the Scrolls' origins was highlighted in the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit held at the Jewish Museum in New York in the Autumn of 2008.

Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been taking a look at this case and I feel that there are issues from both sides. IsraelXKV8R, thank you for being forthcoming about your academic qualifications on your userpage. You obviously have much expertise on this subject and can contribute much to the academic aspect of this article. At the same time, I think ingraining yourself in controversial aspects of this article to be a clear example of Conflict of Interest. I agree with Rachel.Greenberg (welcome to Wikipedia) that this may be eligible to be put into the article. I would definitely consider the National Post to be a Reliable Source and would suggest finding other sources as well. However, please try to recuse yourself from editing until the issue can be discussed civilly on the talk page lest you find yourself in violation of the three revert rule. I agree with Kylu that we should try to handle it here before we move on to Mediation or Arbitration. Let's generate some discussion here instead. Valley2city^‽ 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

valley2city - please see ticket # 2007112710018004. view the m.o. described in the case file. compare it to rachel.greenberg. be sure to note the changes to the Ancient_Qumran:_A_Virtual_Reality_Tour page that i never edit (to avoid a conflict of interest in my own work). interesting that he chose that page to begin to edit now. note especially the rationale given for the reinsertion of material that was removed as a part of the adjudicated case above. compare it to the last person to attempt to reinsert the material: User:Critical_Reader, who was banished for - you guessed it - sockpuppetry. welcome back to wikipedia. if you'd like further details and evidence showing that this is clearly the same thing all over again, please email me privately. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

i'd also ask you to check to see if rachel.greenberg is an nyu ip address (like all the other banished aliases). also check to see time of creation and to see if it is a single purpose account (issues of golb's criticism of the dead sea scrolls exhibitions). let me know what you find. thanx IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Vally2City, thanks for welcoming me to the site. I have now found another article, from the Los Angeles Times, entitled "A lively debate over the Dead Sea Scrolls," which, at the end, quotes another scholar, Robert Eisenman, as also being critical of the exhibits. I would be glad to add a reference to this article, if I can continue editing this section. Meanwhile, it's at http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/26/entertainment/et-scrolls26

2) IsraelXKV8R, I only signed up with Wikipedia a few days ago, and the first thing I had to confront was your attacks on me and my section, so I haven't exactly had the time for multiple purposes, have I? But if you would stop harassing me, maybe I would be able to edit some other articles dealing with other topics that interest me.

3) The reason I reverted the article on your film to the state where it included Golb's review of your film, was so people could see exactly why you have a conflict of interest as regards my section in this article, where Golb is mentioned. Here you say you have no conflict, but again you are attacking me because I mentioned "issues of golb's criticism of the dead sea scrolls exhibitions" -- those are your words. This seems like a conflict of interest to me, and I would be grateful if you could please have the courtesy to stop deleting my section.

4) I also found the reason someone gave for deleting the sentence on Golb's review from the article on your film was suspicious, and stated so. If someone else had the same "rationale" as mine -- that Golb's review was obviously not "self-published" -- it seems to me he/she was right. The discussion on that page dealing with your film and Golb's review is so deranged I could barely make heads or tails of it, and frankly I did not have the patience to read it all. So let me know if I'm missing something there.

5) As for your sockpuppetry case from two years ago that you keep attacking me with, I have nothing to do with it, thank you very much again. I've spoken with five or six people here about the exhibit controversy since seeing the exhibit at the Jewish Museum, and no one even mentioned Wikipedia. But everyone knows about Golb and the controversy -- it's not a mystery. His book is assigned reading, and it's not my fault if it's at the center of a controversy that thousands of people know about; after all, there are nearly two million Jewish people in New York City. So if you continue with your war, then neither I nor anyone else at NYU can contribute anything about this controversy. Is that what you want? Just let me know, so I can get back to my paper which is due on Friday and stop exhausting myself with your attacks.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

give it time rg, give it time. lol. (clever though...)

for those of you that like bread, leave it. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

request for mediation

valley2city makes a good point. prior to entering into formal mediation, an attempt should be made to have an open discussion here. and that we have had. the anonymous, single purpose account that is the first_last name combo of rachel.greenberg, hailing from an nyu ip address, has inserted material critical of exhibitions of the dead sea scrolls, which cite as sources and link to criticisms of a scholar named norman golb. he denies being affiliated with other banned sock puppets, and accuses me of a conflict of interest. does that about sum it up? please keep that argument in mind.

editors: please review the case surrounding ticket # 2007112710018004. then compare details. compare language. compare systems of numbering. compare knowledge of other links, such as the recently mentioned la times article by mike boehm, which rachel.greenberg coincidentally mentioned above. compare that to posts made by critical reader made on this very page above and on other wiki pages involving qumran and ancient qumran. compare them to the posts made by charles gadda. note the focus of the criticisms, the language, and the timing. note also some of the discussions in the comments. then go back and review the case surrounding ticket # 2007112710018004 again. check the alias list against the 40+ aliases listed for 'charles gadda', including 'j. friedman' and 'jessica friedman,' who happen to appear in comments on several of 'charles gadda's' now public articles. then perhaps view the article at biblical archaeology review website. pay attention to the comments in the talkback box where one user asserts that 'j. friedman' is, in fact, norman golb's son, raphael golb (rg). then go back and look at the evidence presented in the case surrounding ticket # 2007112710018004, in which a team of objective wikipedia mediators and editors determined that this was all nothing more than a campaign by a sock puppet for norman golb to promote his views and publicly criticize all other scholars studying the dead sea scrolls. then keep in mind that another dead sea scrolls exhibition is gearing up in toronto. review the evidence we already have. look at rachel.greenberg's denials. look familiar? look at the case as a whole and tell me what you think. sound familiar? now tell me, who has the conflict of interest? why does a series of reoccurring aliases and anonymous sock puppets continually return to criticize wiki articles involving qumran, the dead sea scrolls, and promote norman golb every time a new exhibition is about to open? sheer coincidence??

as for our friend rachel.greenberg, i do not want to enter again into a period of back-and-forth accusations on the talk pages of wiki articles. so i'd like to request that you, rachel.greenberg, join me in voluntary mediation to discuss this matter. i'll even make the request. it think mediation would be the fastest way to get to the bottom of our differences. that way, we can get some editors to look behind the scenes at make some decisions. will you join me in mediation? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

IsraelXKV8R, thank you for demonstrating my point: Golb criticized your film in his review, and here you attack me for "promoting" Golb, while denying your conflict of interest.

Wikipedia administrators, please consider the implications of what IsraelXKV8R is saying:

1) There is a sinister Machiavellian plot, conducted by Golb and his sockpuppets, including his son and who knows who else, to "promote" Golb.

2) Since bloggers who attacked the exhibit and engaged in discussions about it online are "promoting" Golb, any NYU student who finds newspaper coverage of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit controversy of interest and worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls is a sockpuppet for Golb.

3) The case IsraelXKV8R is concerned about from two years ago (see his list of eight names in his earlier posting up above) didn't involve someone called "Critical Reader" and people who were sockpuppets for him, it involved Golb and people who were sockpuppets for him.

4) The National Post is a sockpuppet for Golb.

5) The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times are also sockpuppets for Golb.

6) The academic members of the Bibbia Blog team are sockpuppets for Golb, because they reprinted an article of his critical of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. In fact, anyone who either agrees with Golb or finds his point of view to be important or interesting is a sockpuppet for him.

7) Information based on these sources, even though they are all available on Google and nearly everyone I've spoken with here knows about them, is unreliable, because it is all coming from people involved in this plot.

I looked at IsraelXKV8R's evidence for all of this, and all I see is a bunch of blog postings critical of the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, and on the Biblical Archaeology site, someone who posts a comment attacking Golb -- and I read elsewhere that this same person has been obsessively attacking Golb and members of his family for years all over the internet.

I have also asked and no one knows of any son of Norman Golb's at NYU.

I beg you to consider that I have not "promoted" Golb or his side of this case. I am not connected with Golb, any sockpuppets of his or anyone in his family. Apart from tedious discussions from two years ago which I barely had the patience to read, I don't see anyone else posting about this on Wikipedia.

It's not my fault if Golb is at the center of this controversy. I am not involved in any academic quarrel with IsraelXKV8R. He is the one involved in a quarrel with Golb. He is the one trying to manipulate you, and this Wikipedia article, to keep information about this controversy from being known. But information and knowledge is the point of an encyclopedia, isn't it?

Thank you for your consideration.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

dear rachel.greenberg - please see Wiki:Non_sequitur_(logic) (by the way - non sequiturs are yet another m.o. for 'charles gadda.' read his now public articles. all guilty-by-association non sequiturs). in fact, let's keep an eye on those now public articles carefully ;-)

oh, and rachel.greenberg - you again conveniently avoided my question (another 'gadda-esque' technique): will you accept my request for voluntary mediation? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you're harassing me and trying to manipulate people, and I would ask you again to leave me alone, and do whatever you like to convince Wikipedia administrators that you don't have a conflict of interest, despite Golb's extensive criticism of your own film shown at the exhibit. You can "keep an eye" on Now Public articles if you like, I used only reliable sources and wrote my section in good faith. If this is the way it's going to be every time I edit an article, I will cancel my membership. Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

once again, will you, Rachel.Greenberg, please accept my request for voluntary mediation? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

why scholars are skeptical of wikipedia

keep in mind also, that when you ask those who are considered experts in a particular field to refrain from making contributions to articles in their field of expertise, you drive away those scholars who were at least trying to embrace wikipedia and increase the credibility of the articles. when you ask those of us who are trained in a field not to contribute to articles in our field, you by definition leave the articles to those who are not experts. or, worse yet, the articles are left to those who hide their special interests behind multiple aliases. it is for this reason that to this day, scholars are skeptical of the information in wikipedia. i'm actually trying to promote the technology in my classes, but asking the very scholars embracing wikipedia to refrain from posting is self-defeating. wikipedia cannot survive unless it is ultimately considered credible. and it will never be considered credible if you drive away scholars in favor of amateurs and anonymous users with hidden special interests. the idea is to encourage experts to contribute, not drive them away... my $.02. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If scholars are so "skeptical" of Wikipedia, why does IsraelXKV8R "promote the technology" in his classes? To me he seems to be implying that he won't participate anymore if Wikipedia publishes any information referring to sources critical of him. This strikes me as manipulative.

At any rate, IsraelXKV8R's complaint about being "driven away" from eliminating my section misses the basic point:

IsraelXKV8R doesn't have the right to control the content of an article by eliminating sections that refer readers to controversies in which he himself plays a role.

IsraelXKV8R doesn't have the right to decide that the existence of viewpoints critical of his own is not to be referred to in articles he is editing, when the sources used are reliable.

IsraelXKV8R doesn't have the right to use his expertise as a pretext to impose a definition of which interests are "special." His own interests are just as "special" as anyone else's -- his film was criticized by Golb, and he doesn't want information about the controversy to be known.

Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

i do not control content. however, i shall insist that those decisions that have been arbitrated by mediators be enforced. it is quite obvious what you are doing, and i have asked mediators to step in and examine the evidence. i am open to criticism - that is the academic way. but when a violation of wiki's sock puppetry and meat puppetry rules has been violated, mediated, and judged, i'd like to see them maintained. enjoy. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You do indeed control content: you have repeatedly removed a perfectly germane section I added to this article on one pretext or another, despite your conflict of interest.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

let's stick to the scrolls, not traveling exhibitions

i have removed, once again, the issues arising from about private exhibitions based on letters and blogs. let's stick to the facts, and stick to the scrolls. this article is about the dss, not the traveling exhibitions. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

and if we still have issues, let's go into mediation. this isn't going to get resolved here. unless, that is, your entire objective is to just pick a fight... IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, despite your conflict of interest, you have again deleted the section I added to this article dealing with a controversy in which you are personally involved.

The topic is perfectly germane to this article. The information I have provided is based not on "letters and blogs," but on reliable sources consisting of newspaper articles and published correspondence. You are unable to reach an objective decision about this matter because you have a conflict of interest. This is why you make false accusations about me, to distract people from your own personal involvement in the controversy so they don't notice your conflict of interest. Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

no mention of the essenes?

is it just me or is it strange that there is no mention of the essenes in this article outside of the titles of books? i'm not saying they are responsible for them, but that is a traditional theory right now? i'll add a section about the various theories about the scrolls origins in the next few days. i'll include every one's theory, including the theory that the essenes wrote them (even though i have some doubts about that). IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)