Talk:William Schniedewind

I have removed misattributed film information.

Someone mistakenly credited the subject with the creation of a film that he did not produce. I removed the mistaken information. For more information about the film's creator, see the film's credits. IsraelXKV8R 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is very interesting. Originally, Mr. Cargill stated that a class Schniedewind gave was the "inspiration" for the "project"; then someone rewrote that to say that Schniedewind "created" the project, and around the same time the virtual reality film, which is the basic end result of the project, naturally got introduced into the picture, and Mr. Cargill, while continuing to participate in the discussion and to make editorial changes, allowed all of that to stand -- for how long? a week? two weeks? -- until I introduced the fact that the originality and accuracy of the film has been the subject of debate, at which point he now finally comes back and deletes this entire portion of the article on the ground of "misattribution."

So now we are left with the brief statement that Schniedewind created the project, together with a link to the project's website itself. But the film was prepared by Mr. Cargill under Schniedewind's professorial guidance, as the basic end result of the project, and this is why both Schniedewind and Cargill are consistently cited together in all the media coverage of the film (in fact, in all of those articles, Schniedewind is more prominently featured than Cargill, which is what must have led to the confusion to begin with). Yet the article, as it stands, now contains no information on the controversy surrounding the project's basic end result. Therefore, I would suggest that the film and the controversy be mentioned as before, simply inserting the words "the end result of the project," etc.

Otherwise, the reference to the project should be deleted altogether. Dr. Schniedewind would then still be left with a perfectly reasonable encyclopaedia article, minus the more controversial aspects of it (apart from the single outstanding issue of his claimed, yet undefined and unsourced, participation in surveys and excavations).

Hopefully, Mr. Cargill will respond here; otherwise I will revert and change the language to reflect the fact that the film itself was not "created" by Schniedewind, but is the "end result" of his project.Critical Reader 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not the place to make claims that have not been made in secondary published sources. In this article, particularly as it refers to a living person we have to stay as close to the sources as possible, describe significant viewpoints (including the ones made by the subject) and attribute them to these that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

According to University of Holy Land website, Schniedewind DOES serve on their Board of Advisors

He is listed on their website, both as adjunct professor and as serving on their Board of Advisors, this is sourced precisely through the link provided. I don't see how Mr. Cargill can simply deny these important facts, so to speak, ex cathedra. Is Mr. Cargill trying to say that Schniedewind once served, but no longer serves, i.e., that the information is out of date? If so, then we should simply put the present perfect "has served" instead of the present tense. In the meantime, I have undone Mr. Cargill's deletion of this information. P.s. I have been politely waiting for a reply from Mr. Cargill before returning to the issue of the film project.Critical Reader 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cached version of University of Holy Land website shows that Schniedewind DID serve on their Board of Advisors

At some point during the past few days, no doubt as a result of the preceding discussion entries, Dr. Schniedewind's name has been removed from the University of the Holy Land personnel page. But Google's cached version of the page still features Dr. Schniedewind, both as adjunct professor and as a member of the Board of Advisors of that institution. Instead, however, of simply changing "serves" to "has served," and without engaging in any discussion of the matter whatsoever, Robert Cargill has now simply removed the sentence referring to the University of the Holy Land. The very attempt to remove this information shows how important it is, and therefore I have replaced it, inserting the link to the cached Google page and modifying the language to reflect the fact that Schniedewind apparently no longer serves in this Christian fundamentalist educational institution.Critical Reader 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A cached google page is not a good source, as its provenance cannot be verified. Is there another source in which we can find that information? Also, may I advise of WP:SOAP and WP:NOR? If this information is important and significant, we should be able to find ample sources to support that claim. Wikipedia is not a "first publisher" of information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In checking Critical Reader (talk · contribs) contributions, I can see that most of the edits are narrowly focused on controversies related to the dead sea scrolls and involved individuals, with a very specific point of view. I would argue that Wikipedia may not be the best place to pursue this, rather, a blog or personal home page would be more suitable. I say this based on the comments made on pages he edits, and on the basis of our policies of no original research and What Wikipedia is not. Alternatively, User:Critical Reader may find a more suitable wiki in which these constrains do not exists such as on Wikiinfo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The same advice would apply to other editors of this article: If you cannot edit within the constrains imposed by Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and editing process, it would be better to submit ideas to the talk page and allow other editors to implement the edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the Google page? It specifically states: "This is Google's cache of http://www.uhl.ac/personnel/ as retrieved on 26 Sep 2007 02:13:02 GMT." Please explain why this provenance "cannot be verified." It is simply, as it says, the University of the Holy Land (UHL) personnel page in the form it was in on September 26, 2007. The "first publisher" was not wikipedia, it was the UHL itself, as indicated in the web address. If you go to the page as it currently stands, and compare it with the cached page, you will see that the only difference is that Dr. Schniedewind's name has, since September 26, been removed from the two locations where it was previously listed.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why you blame me for focusing on a particular topic, when the very author of this article, Mr. Robert Cargill, not only has exactly the same focus, but has actually written this article to call attention to his own work product, the virtual reality film he made for the "Qumran Visualization Project" created by his professor Dr. Schniedewind, to which he refers in footnote 4. You don't seem to be at all troubled that wikipedia is being used in such a ridiculously unethical manner, yet you blame me for "pursuing this"! What am I pursuing? Honesty? I would rather have spent my time looking at other items, but Mr. Cargill published this misleading article, leaving out the basic information that would allow readers to understand that Schniedewind, in addition to teaching at UCLA, has also been affiliated with a Christian fundamentalist educational institution, and thereby obliging me to point out the real facts--which have now been covered up by the removal of Schniedewind's name from the personnel page of the institution in question.Critical Reader 07:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to you and other editors of this article. As for pursuing honesty, which is an admirable endeavor, that is better done in your blog or home page, rather than in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a court of law, and not a place for advocacy (see WP:NOT). You speak of the subject of this article being affiliated with Christian fundamentalists, and I say to you: good, if that is the case, and that is a significant issue, we should have at least a few sources that describe that affiliation. If it does not, it is not significant for the purposes of Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV). Is that simple. Regarding Mr. Cahgill, if he has a conflict of interest, he should be extremely cautious when editing this article, and if in doubt about something, submit proposals for edits in the talk page. Please do not bring what seems to be a personal dispute into Wikipedia: this is not the right forum for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for insisting, but although I agree with much of what say, I wouldn't want to conclude that seeking to implement basic standards of honesty is the same as "advocacy," or that encyclopedias, as opposed to blogs, can publish self-serving, misleading articles as long as the authors are "cautious" enough to avoid flagrantly flouting the rules. I agree with you that merely personal disputes should not be played out in the pages of wikipedia, but this is not a personal dispute--I don't even know Mr. Cargill, but since I have read, e.g., the articles dealing with the topic on the Nowpublic site, along with the sources provided in those articles concerning him, his professor and a number of other bible scholars, I see what he is doing and I must protest against it in the name of honesty and neutrality.

As for Schniedewind's past affiliation with the University of the Holy Land, the source provided here is the actual personnel page of that institution as it existed until September 26, 2007; I don't see how more reliable you can get.

In addition, the reference (footnote 4) provided for the claim that Schniedewind has archaeological experience is both self-serving and lacking in neutrality, because it refers to a site put out by the "project" that Schniedewind himself created. That site makes the same claim about archaeological experience, but it doesn't source the claim. Therefore, the sentence describing Schiedewind's purported archaeological experience should come out of the article unless Schniedewind can source the claim with some kind of neutral, reliable information.Critical Reader 17:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The site you provide as a link, is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, as it is a self-published source written by a non-notable person (as per Wikipedia guidelines on notability) named Charles Gadda. It seems that many of the claims you make are closely related to that source. Again, these claims are good to be made in blogs and self-published sites such as NowPublic but not useful for Wikipedia articles (see WP:V#Sources. As for the claims made in the article, these needs to be substantiated by reliable sources, including sources related to the subject itself, with some caveats explained in WP:SELFPUB. Finally, in regard to the University of the Holy Land, I repeat my argument above: If that is an important and significant viewpoint, it would have third-party sources that describe it. If we do not have such sources, Wikipedia is not the place to publish that information, as it lacks notability. You may think that it is important, but not for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, I was focusing on neutrality, but what you are saying is that the Holy Land information actually lacks notability. But by that token, the sentence about Schniedewind's archaeological experience also lacks "notability"--in fact, it is even less notable, because the only source provided for it is Schniedewind and Cargill's own, self-published "Qumran Visualization Project" webpage. Accordingly, the sentence -- which is obviously unduly self-serving and the truth of which strikes me as dubious -- should be eliminated, unless you can suggest a reason to keep it that meets the SELF-PUB standards to which you refer.

In addition, I don't see what "third-party" sources describe the other information included about Schniedewind's role on various committees. Why is this information more "notable" than his being listed on the personnel page of a Christian fundamentalist "university"? The result is an article that lacks neutrality and misinforms readers, who will come away thinking that Schniedewind is a secular scholar, when he is in fact the opposite of that.Critical Reader 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(a) I do not see any text in the article that describes a "archaeological experience"; (b) I do not see any text in the article that describes the subject as being secular, religious, or otherwise. As I said, the minutiae that for you seems so important, it is not really notable and significant for such short article. If it was, we would have had multiple sources that describe the religious affiliation or the lack of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(a) I am referring to this sentence: "Schniedewind has participated in excavations and surveys in Israel, including Tell es-Safi, Wadi Qumran, Har Tuv, and Tel Batash." The source for this statement (which, as I said, is unduly self-serving and for all I know not even true) is the website of Schniedewind's own "Qumran Visualization Project." (b) An article doesn't need to use a word for it to paint a misleading picture of someone. Here, it shows Schniedewind as a professor in a secular institution of learning--the University of California. It omits the role he has played in at least one Christian fundamentalist insitution. And that is quite obviously miseading in a really fundamental way.Critical Reader 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(a) Are you saying that Schniedewind participation in these excavations is disputed? If so, provide a source that states that. (b) You are splitting hairs: If UHL is a Christian fundamentalist university, what is the big deal? I think that you may be an "insider" to which these things matter, but I am not certain that it is a relevant aspect for our readers.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that this assertion is published by the UCLA [1], so that counts as a secondary source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

All the sources I can find about Schniedewind and the UHL are on self-published blogs. It seems that this Charles Gadda is promoting the same viewpoint you are trying to promote here in numerous personal blogs and other such self-published sites. I would advise you to drop this issue, or find some good sources instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(a) No, I am not saying it is "disputed," I am saying the source provided is unduly self-serving, so one must either (1) eliminate the sentence or (2) provide a notable, third-part source--precisely the same demand you are making with respect to the sentence concerning UHL that you deleted. In addition, I'm saying that the sentence strikes me as untrue. By your seemingly arbitrary criteria, to insert statements about oneself in encyclopedia articles all one needs to do is refer to one's own blogs to back them up. Which is worse, doing that or referring to a cached Google page?

Faculty members of UCLA obviously have the right to use the university's computer system to publish declarations about themselves. I am not at all convinced that this should count as a "secondary source." At the same time, you say that "all the sources you can find about Schniedewind and the UHL are on self-published blogs," thereby continuing to deny that the cached Google UHL personnel page is a "good source." Are you saying the Google page was fabricated?

(b) One doesn't have to be an "insider" (which I am not, if I correctly understand what you mean) to know that in the United States, church and state are separated, and that state-run educational institutions don't hire theologians or theologically minded individuals to teach the bible. Schiedewind's affiliation with UHL raises a serious issue with respect to the University of California and academic culture in general, and that appears to be exactly why his student Robert Cargill has been trying to get rid of that information all along. Now they have concealed the facts by having his name removed from the UHL personnel page, and you call this "splitting hairs." It's a very important issue, and I find your argument on this matter ("what is the big deal?") frankly obscurantist--I'm sorry to say so.Critical Reader 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(a) I do not think that it is self-serving to say that this scholar participated in such excavations as published in the UCLA website. (b) You are advocating. Again, Wikipedia is not the place for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

they have concealed the facts by having his name removed from the UHL personnel page sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More likely that he was in their advisory board for a while, and then stepped down. Happens all the time in academia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have attributed the assertion about the involvement in these excavations, for a more neutral representation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(a) Of course it is self-serving, and doubly so--the scholar in question obviously created that UCLA webpage with the unverifiable claims about his having participated in excavations; and the page promotes his project.

(b) You are advocating. You are saying that such matters are unimportant. That is a concrete position you are taking on a matter of cultural concern. As a result, this article, in its present form, is not neutral. It represents only your position on that serious issue

I have corrected your changes to the sentence in question to make it truly neutral. The other sentences you added are also not neutral. No mention is made of the criticism by a University of Chicago professor of the work-product of Schniedewind's Qumran project.Critical Reader 03:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What professor, and what is the source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to this? [2]. If that is the case, that may be a good source for the article about Norman Golb, as per WP:SPS, but not for this article. SPS reads: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey buster, that's hogwash. That article by Golb is published by uchicago.edu, just the way the project description by Schniedewind is published by UCLA.edu. This "Jossi" dude keeps contradicting himself--sounds like a pseudonym for Robert Cargill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.89.187 (talk • contribs)

You may want to be made aware that I am a long-time contributor to Wikipedia, an administrator, and that I had no knowledge of this article until last month. Ah, and I am it your "dude". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

First of all, sign your posts so we can understand where one begins and the other ends. The preceding paragraph appears to have been authored by an anonymous contributor (I try not to use that kind of language). As for the point raised in it, I can't help but agree. Either the UCLA Schniedewind page is self-published, in which case the sentence referring to it is self-serving; or else neither Golb's article nor the Schniedewind page are self-published, in which case this article about Schniedewind is not neutral.Critical Reader 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To which I will add that your citation of the museum lecture series is also not neutral, because it leaves out the fact, e.g., that the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune, among other media sources, have reported on criticism of the lecture series and museum exhibit on account of the exclusion of an entire group of scholars who oppose the theory favored by the museum. I have no objection to your use of the Christian magazine source.Critical Reader 04:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is an article in the LA times about this person, please provide it so that it can be evaluated for inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You say: Either the UCLA Schniedewind page is self-published, in which case the sentence referring to it is self-serving; or else neither Golb's article nor the Schniedewind page are self-published, in which case this article about Schniedewind is not neutral. Well, not so. Please read WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, and please do not make me make the same argument again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On this last point of yours, see my note below, in which I specifically point to the portion of SELFPUB that has been motivating my entire reaction to the sentence in question.

The LA Times article to which I referred is about the museum exhibit and lecture series this person participated in. The sentence as you have drafted it leads the reader to imagine a glorious series of "distinguished" lectures, hence that Schniedewind is "distinguished," without informing him that the exhibit and lecture series have been attacked as biased and misleading. If the Ku Klux Klan owned this museum and presented that series, the reader wouldn't know it, and pursuant to your narrow definition of "about," that would be perfectly normal for an encyclopedia article. As stated before, I find that to be an obscurantist approach to what is obviously an important cultural issue. I mean no offense and I'm sure you don't intend to obscure things, but I fear that in this case your zeal to interpret the guidelines in as narrow a manner as possible, will only succeed in providing someone with the opportunity to pull the wool over the eyes of many readers.Critical Reader 06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We report what publishes sources say about a subject. That is all we do in WP. Seems that you have a tendentious animosity about this person that may obfuscate your perception of it. Again, see WP:SOAP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and your definition of "about a subject" apparently means that if the Ku Klux Klan, under the auspices of a museum, put on the "distinguished" lecture series in which this subject participated, I would have a "tendentious animosity" if I suggested that readers should be informed of that.

The fact of the matter is that the entire exhibit and lecture series, including Schniedewind's contribution, has been criticized as having a "tendentious animosity," as indicated by the LA Times. If you don't point that out, and keep the sentence about the distinguished lecture series, this article is not neutral.

The simple, neutral solution would be to say simply that Schniedewind lectured at the museum in the context of a controversial exhibit on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Leave out the word "controversial," and the sentence would still be more neutral than what you have.Critical Reader 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:V on Self published sources

Please read this carefully and try to understand what the policy means (my highlights):

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources.

Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The only argument you are making about "self-serving", was related to the Qumran Visualization website, which we have already addressed with our last edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have indeed read that material carefully, and you don't seem to understand what I am saying. The material states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." That is exactly why I am saying the UCLA webpage created by Schniedewind is self-published (and he is "claiming to be an expert" in archaeology, a highly dubious proposition). The mere fact that he used the UCLA website to post his webpage doesn't remove him from this category unless you're reading the term "website" in an absurdly literalistic manner. So the question becomes, does it fall under the exceptions? And the answer to that is no, because it is unduly self-serving.

What I understood you to be saying before, was that it is not self-published. But then you come back and say the material authored by Golb and posted on the University of Chicago website is self-published. I disagree with this combination of assertions, because I don't see how you can have your cake and eat it too.

On your other point, see my note above (before this section).Critical Reader 06:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not reading the spirit of these policies: we cannot use self-published sources to make claims about third parties, and we can use self published sources in an article about themselves providing is not unduly self-serving. I do not see how it can be self-serving to say that this scholar participated in certain activities related to his area of research. If that is disputed, please provide sources that attest to that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Certain activities related to his area of research"? What are these "certain activities" you refer to? In what capacity did Schniedewind "participate" in these excavations? By chatting about the Book of Proverbs? He wrote his Ph.D. on prophecy in the Bible. Has he published a single scholarly article on any of these archaeological excavations in which he claims to have "participated"? Given the lack of reliable secondary sources, if you allow the sentence to stand, it seems to me that you will be cheapening the field of archaeology and showing that wikipedia can be used to promote apparent amateurism.Critical Reader 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Some friendly advice to Critical Reader

As you know, Wikipedia keeps an "akashic" record of all our edits and comments: It is easy to see that your edits are narrowly focused on the Dead Sea scrolls, William Schniedewind, the San Diego Natural History Museum, and Norman Golb articles. That in itself may not be an issue: many editors contribute to areas they are passionate about.

But you also may know that as we use the Internet we leave our digital footprints in our posts to USENET, discussion groups, blogs, etc. In this context, while researching this dispute one can easily find a post made by a user whose nickname is "Critical Reader" [3], who uses an email address that belongs to Charles Gadda [4], who is the person writing the nowpublic.com and other blogs about the "Dead Sea Scroll controversy" [5]. Furthermore, the claims made by Gadda are uncannily similar to the claims made by Golb in this PDF [6], which you are trying to use as a source for this article.

Given this, my advice to you would be that to avoid any further embarrassment to yourself, and by proxy to professor Golb, that you refrain from using Wikipedia as a platform to advocate your viewpoints or these of Prof. Golb, by avoiding editing these articles directly. You can limit your contributions to the talk page, so that disinterested editors can evaluate these and incorporate them into these articles if appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem intent on focusing in on me in an ad hominem matter, rather than addressing the legitimate concerns I have raised concerning the neutrality of several articles on this site dealing in one way or another with a major current topic (the Dead Sea Scrolls and their biased and unscientific treatment in museum exhibits). What is more, you combine this with an attempt to show that there is something sinister about being influenced by the writings of a well-known historian. For your information, I am merely one of a group of people in the Brooklyn and NYU community who share a common concern about freedom of inquiry and an ongoing campaign of public misinformation in this field. Our understanding of the situation has been usefully informed by reading the articles of Dr. Golb, Drs. Magen and Peleg, and others. Our only goal, however, is to have anything relevant to this controversy presented in an appropriately neutral way. There is nothing wrong with this, and your desire to reveal some kind of terrible, "uncanny" truth about my presumed identity with Mr. Gadda and my sourcing of an article by Golb is an embarrassment to you rather than me.

As for your suggestion that I limit my comments to the talk page, that is what I normally do, but when those comments are ignored it is sometimes necessary to change something to call attention to a problem. Any such changes can always be undone, but as anyone can see, many of my changes have been welcomed by various editors as useful contributions. My comments are never anti-intellectual or obscurantist; they always aim at achieving neutrality and professional encyclopedic standards as opposed to amateurism. By attacking me, you seem to show a degree of intolerance for such a perspective.Critical Reader 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment was not an ad-hominem, and I am not "attacking" you. Just pointing the fact that you may be using WP to further the same claims you make in your blogs, a thing that may be in contradiction with our policy on conflict of interests and WP:SOAP. Your blog is a much better platform to expound on your theories, Wikipedia is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that my involvement in this article started in a complain placed at the BLP noticeboard and that I have absolutely no POV on this subject. In this context, I would appreciate it you take my comments and my intervention in good faith, as I am neutral to this dispute. I will make a request from other admins to look at your contributions, so that they can offer you some additional advice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to take your intervention in good faith (as I was doing all along until this "friendly advice" episode). But there seems to be a basic confusion here. I have not been "advocating" anyone's viewpoint or "expounding" on theories. I have simply been pointing out ways of making articles more neutral with respect to an ongoing controversy in which various people (including Dr. Schniedewind and Robert Cargill) are involved. This is no doubt troubling to individuals who want things to be presented in a non-neutral manner, but they are the ones advocating a theory. If I wanted to advocate a theory, I would indeed post on a blog.

Incidentally, since you raise the issue of conflicts of interest, it is surely unusual that Robert Cargill, whose virtual reality film on Qumran is the work-product of Dr. Schniedewind's Qumran Visualization Project, has been allowed to promote that project by authoring and editing this article. That you would focus on the idea that I have a conflict due to my presumed desire to advocate a theory, when Mr. Cargill's self-serving involvement in this entire process stands out and has been ignored, is unfortunate. (Please note: I would not care about this were it not for the fact that Cargill's film, here indirectly promoted by himself through the inclusion of that sentence we were working on, does indeed advocate one particular theory. Again, my concern is neutrality.)Critical Reader 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

P.s. You speak of a complaint on the noticeboard. I can't find this complaint there, so it was presumably made a long time ago and has been archived since then. If you can locate it, I would be interested in reading it because I don't seek to ignore criticism of myself; otherwise I can only suppose that it must have been submitted by Mr. Cargill as part of his ongoing editorial involvement in this article.Critical Reader 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive23 at the top. Click on the "show" link at top-right. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Cargill has now again edited the article, despite his conflict of interest

He has changed the sentence back to its original form, justifying this with the assertion that Schniedewind did not create the Qumran Visualization Project webpage. If Schniedewind did not create that webpage, then it would appear that Robert Cargill created it. So the sentence should read: "The Qumran Visualization webpage, created by a student of Dr. Schniedewind's under the auspices of UCLA, states that Schniedewind has participated in excavations..."Critical Reader 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "Critical Reader". There is no excuse for allowing Mr. Cargill, the student and collaborator of the article's subject, to control the editing of the article. Conflict of interest. The sentence should be kept as Reader and Jossi had agreed until the matter is resolved in discussion. I have modified by inserting term "student." If Cargill has more specific information on who created the webpage, he should come forward with it here in the discussion so the sentence can be improved.216.165.95.64 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No one can "control" an article, this is after all a wiki. Yes, Mr. Cargill and Mr. Gadda are strongly discouraged to edit this article directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again... I have removed the reference to the QVP

I had hoped this would alleviate the need for further edits. I previously had removed any reference to the Qumran Visualization Project. Then, for some reason, it reappeared. It's gone again. We good? IsraelXKV8R 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest both you and Mr. Gadda to refrain from editing this and related articles directly, if you are unable to edit within the constrains imposed by our content policies. Deletion of well sourced material is considered vandalism, and addition of material that is poorly sourced to biographies of living people is considered disruptive, both of which may result in the loss of your editing privileges if recurring . A safer approach would be to submit your proposals or additions and deletions in this talk page instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I shall revert my last reversion. I am fine with the mention of the QVP being removed, since that is my work. I removed the mention of the QVP earlier. If you would remove it again, I'd be grateful. There is no reason I should be mentioned on subject's page. That should end the controversy, since there will be no mention of the QVP, there should be no reason those critical of the Schniedewind to continue to edit his page. Beseder? IsraelXKV8R 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

lo beseder... The fact that this person is mentioned in relation to that exhibit is encyclopedic. We just need to find a neutral way to present that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

ok. but, the way it is written now is a) wordy, and b) the footnote shows where the info is coming from. why repeat it in the article?IsraelXKV8R 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of "repeating it in the article." You could delete the footnote and link the words "Qumran Visualization Project" in the article instead: would you be "repeating it" then? Also, there is no problem with "mentioning" the QVP, the problem is that it is an odd source to use for the assertion that the subject has participated in excavations.

It should be added that there is an appearance of impropriety (i.e., of a conflict of interest) in that an informed reader who puts two and two together could conclude that you included the claim about excavations in the article to begin with, because it gave a quality of skilled archaeological professionalism to the Qumran Visualization Project itself--and hence to your role in it. But then you use the project webpage to source the claim, which doesn't strike me as very convincing at all.

Perhaps you could look around for a better (i.e, reliable, neutral) source. In that case, you would no doubt be surprised to see that I wouldn't object to the claim anymore. For all I know, it could be true, and I have no objection to saying things that are true. What I object to is inserting vague statements about "participating" in excavations, with no further explanation, when the subject does not appear to have any higher academic training as an archaeologist. It lowers standards in the field and it shouldn't be allowed to stand, certainly not without a solid, reliable source. Surely you have access to such sources, and your failure to come forward with them, leads me to fear that the excavations in question may have taken place under the auspices of the University of the Holy Land or some similar institution that you don't want to mention in the article.Critical Reader 03:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone should look at this article

It doesn't give us any idea whatsoever of what kind of contribution (if any) this guy has made to scholarship. What is his originality? What theories does he defend? Not a word about any of that! Instead, we learn that he serves on a steering committee! WHO CARES??

Next, we read:

"An article in The Christian Century, refers to Schniedewind as having demonstrated in his book How the Bible Became a Book, his knowledge of the archaeology of ancient Israel, the history of the Hebrew language, and the development historical literature based on the Bible."

In other words, the "Christian Century" says this subject has "demonstrated his knowledge" of his field of study. Show me a scholar who hasn't "demonstrated his knowledge"!

Even though it's not linked, I went and found the piece on the "Christian Century" site, hoping to learn something more about the subject. What do I find? That some of the subject's views are "controversial" and "not convincing." Is that mentioned in this article? Of course not!

Then we read that the subject is "listed" in something called "Distinguished Lecture Series Speakers Biographies." So I go look at that too, and what do I find? Subject gives popular lecture at museum; museum advertises lecture by calling subject "distinguished." And this is supposed to be notable! Who wrote this, a high school student? "My teacher is distinguished, a museum said so!"

Finally, I see in the subject's list of publications, in the "archived" discussion material, a listing entitled "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage." Hopefully "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage"'s contents are not as ridiculous as its title--no wonder the "Christian Century" said "controversial" and "not convincing"!

Does "Jossi" deal with any of this? Of course not! Instead, he slugs it out with the "Critical Reader" guy! Incidentally, we also learn that the article's subject is a UCLA professor who has been teaching at the "University of the Holy Land"! Does the article say a word about that? Of course not, it would violate wikipedia's standards! What about UCLA's standards?

This article is an embarrassment to its own subject, to say nothing of wikipedia's desire to present itself as a serious source of "collectively authored" information. The subject should be given the opportunity to start from scratch and write a new article himself, explaining in simple words (hopefully without "antilanguage"!) what his contribution to scholarship is, where he has taught, and why he is a notable figure.128.122.89.183 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I hope you don't hold me responsible for any of the article's contents--I have focused only on one narrow aspect of it. But for what it is worth, it seems to me that you might wish to query whether the article is intended to provide any serious info on its subject. I don't have the answer to this, but the question seems to result from everything that has been said.Critical Reader 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A note: All the anonymous editors above, are all from New York University as per WHOIS. This refers to 128.122.89.183 (talk · contribs), 216.165.95.64 (talk · contribs), and 128.122.89.187 (talk · contribs), so will take these to be the same person. I would suggest you get a user account if you intend to contribute in an ongoing manner. Also note that a checkuser process enables us to see if one editor is using multiple accounts/IP addresses to make edits. Having said that and in response to comments above, I would say this: this article as it stands is well sourced and neutral. I say this on the basis of my experience in editing hundreds of biographies and in being actively involved in the biographies of living people noticeboard. If you disagree, you can pursue our dispute resolution process, as I do not intend to spend all my wiki time in responding to the same arguments again and again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, and we don't intend to contribute in an ongoing manner.

At least at NYU we learn to be critical of our professors, rather than write encyclopedia articles about them--probably one of the most unethical things a graduate student can do. But of course that doesn't stop wikipedia from publishing the article. Perhaps they don't even realize why it's unethical. No wonder so many people say the site is not respected by serious members of the academic community.128.122.89.212 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some people in the academic community do not like what Wikipedia is, how it works, and have issues with non-scholars writing an encyclopedia. See Criticism of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine quite a few NYU students are laughing at you in some computer lab (I myself write from Seattle). But of course like all paranoid authoritarian figures you are convinced that it is all a plot and they are all one person. What you don't seem to comprehend is that Mr. Cargill is not a "non-scholar." Rather, he has debased the academic community by engaging in this type of unethical conduct. Your failure to comprehend this basic point, which is obviously at the core of the above disscussion, is typical of petty internet tyrants who fancy themselves to be "editors" and think serious (by which I mean the opposite of amateurish) articles can be written by applying a set of "rules" in an empty manner, without any understanding of the underlying moral and scholarly issues involved.67.171.36.47 08:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MEAT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that Wikipedia is not the forum for scholarly disputes. There is other more suitable fora for scholarly debates, such as publishing a peer-reviewed article in which assertions and challenges to Schniedewind and Cagill's theories, exhibits, etc. can be made. In Wikipedia we only present what reliable sources (such as scholarly articles) say about a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

When you assist a young scholar in engaging in unethical conduct, then you obviously expose yourself to becoming such a forum. Here, a Ph.D. candidate published an encyclopedia article about his professor under your "auspices." What serious encyclopedia would have accepted such an article? Your magnificent team of experienced editors obviously made a mistake, but instead of having the dignity to say "yes, we made a mistake" and correct it, you spout off about the "suitable fora" and a bunch of rules. Reminds me of U.S. dictator Bush: protests at my speeches are forbidden! they violate the rules!216.165.95.64 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not assisting anyone in engaging in unethical conduct. The article was initially edited by a person with a conflict of interest, which is discouraged but not forbidden. Then another person (Mr. Gadda) who also has a conflict of interest edited the article as well. I have advised both not to edit the article directly, unless they can abide 100% by our content policies. The article as it stands now is appropriate, and if you disagree with its contents, please pursue dispute resolution. Please do not repeat the same arguments again and again as these will be not replied to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me--I was not planning to participate in this discussion any more, but this comment appears to be directed towards me. As I explained before, I am simply part of a group of people, and the "interest" we share is merely in making this and other related articles (and museum exhibits) neutral--and not in currying our professor's favor with an eye towards promoting our future careers. On the other hand, when you deny that a photograph taken of the internet by Google on a particular day is a reliable source, and on that basis allow someone to publish a misleading and self-serving article, then you raise questions about your own judgment.

As for your other point here, Mr. Cargill did not initially "edit" the article. He initially submitted the article for publication, which is an altogether different matter. You may not have been personally responsible for that unethical action, but the entire wikipedia team that allowed this to happen is clearly responsible, and your continued failure to take remedial action makes you responsible now.Critical Reader 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy in Wikipedia that prohibits editing with a conflict of interest (See WP:COI), although it is strongly discouraged. The original article has changed considerably since its creation, as you can see here, so it is not an issue anymore. There is no such "remedial action" that needs to be taken. I would suggest you move on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But of course it is still an issue!! You can always isolate yourself in a world of "editing" and "wikipedia policies," but there are ethical policies and principles in the real world too, which happens to include wikipedia, UCLA and NYU. Cargill inappropriately submitted (or, in your wikipedia jargon, "created") this article, and every single word that he submitted should now, as someone else pointed out earlier, be rejected. (We will spare you any commentary on your own additions to it [or "edits" as you call them]). The article should be written over again from scratch by Dr. Schniedewind himself, as would have been done from the outset with any reputable encyclopedia.128.122.89.201 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your ethics argument is plainly a formal fallacy (non sequitur). An ethical approach does not require self-authorship. On the contrary, self-authorship is perilous with ethical concerns regarding bias, accuracy and service to readers. Additionally, our policy governing "biographical" articles is quite strict and well-within the bounds of conventional ethics. Please move forward and stop belaboring the point. If you feel there's something specific wrong with the article, please present those individual points rationally and politely for discussion. Problems brought up can be addressed and corrected. Vassyana 18:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected article to make it neutral

Having reviewed the discussion above and compared it with the text of the article in the context of ongoing debates, I have concluded that the article is not neutral. I have corrected accordingly. It should be noted that the review of QVP's work-product that I've linked is not self-published, it is published by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, just as QVP's linked website is published by UCLA.Phillip Kirby (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed this above, If that is the case, that may be a good source for the article about Norman Golb, as per [WP:SPS]], but not for this article. SPS reads: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not re-add materials from self-published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed this: "The review of QVP's work-product that I've linked is not self-published, it is published by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, just as QVP's linked website is published by UCLA." Here is the page on the U of Chicago site where the article is featured: http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/scr/

Golb's personal webpage is elsewhere on the site. His review of the Armstrong book is published there. Universities have specific criteria for distinguishing between items that professors can publish on their own pages and articles the Universities agree to publish. If you're in doubt, you can contact the University and ask them who has the copyright over the articles that appear on the linked page.

By gist of your own argument, the UCLA "Virtual Qumran" webpage is "self-published" by Schniedewind.

Please have this adjucated by a third party wiki editor, since you ignore basic points being made and arbitrarily declare material you don't want to include to be "self-published," thereby giving rise to the suspicion that you're personally motivated.Phillip Kirby (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not personally motivated, I have no dog in this fight, unlike seemingly you. Please read WP:SPS. The document you have used is a self-published document by the author. We can use self-published sources only on the article about the person, and not to be used to make claims about third parties. Put the text again, and you will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no "dog" whatsoever except that you impolitely reverted my changes for a spurious reason.

I, seemingly unlike you, am quite familiar with WP:SPS, it reads as follows:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." And a footnote here explains: "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left on these columns by readers may never be used as sources."

Explain to me how the source I linked is a "self-published document by the author." It is an article published by the Oriental Institute website. It is not a "personal or group blog"; it is not a "self-published book"; and it is not a "personal website"--Golb's personal webpage is elsewhere on the University of Chicago website, as anyone can see by googling his name.

I repeat, have this adjudicated by a third party, because your statements are arbitrary and dogmatic. Other people have complained about this in the past, and I'm beginning to see why.Phillip Kirby (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a third party. I could see that the PDF of Norman Golb, was hosted on that site, but was unable able to find any page on that website that referred to that document. I see you have provided it now. The source can be used, provided it is attributed to this person (Norman Golb), and not asserted as a fact, but as an opinion. I have re-added the source, with proper attribution. It seems that it is the usual one scholar against another's argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. I have changed your words "Golb own" to "current": see the bibliography at the end of Golb's article--he is not arguing the film contradicts his own views, but that it contradicts the information and research conclusions detailed in all the sources he lists there (I believe you will agree with me on this if you read the article in its entirety). In a sense, one can always reduce such debates to "one scholar against another"; but the description of what Golb is saying obviously has to be accurate.Phillip Kirby (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

P.s. and I don't this this sacrifices neutrality, since you appropriately said that Golb "argues" this, which is clearly not the same as saying he's right.Phillip Kirby (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems, from what I am reading (see Norman Golb), that Golb has viewpoints and theories which are not shared by other scholars that study the subject, and that there is quite a bit of "back and forth" between these sides (to put it mildly). I have seen this a lot in academia, but seldom seen a paper in which one calls the other "blatantly misleading". Oh well... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Golb's views are shared by many other scholars -- see, for example, Hirschfeld's book Qumran in Context, or the official Israel Antiquities Authority report by Magen and Peleg at http://www.antiquities.org.il/images/shop/jsp/JSP6_Qumran_color.pdf, which reaches the same conclusion that Qumran was never inhabited by a sect and that the Scrolls came from the Jerusalem area. What is clearly true, however, is that Golb's views are also not shared by many scholars. Various newspaper accounts have described the field as "polarized" between two theories, which is why the people who have been trying to get wikipedia articles to reflect that polarization, have a point.Phillip Kirby (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We can explore the controversy at the article on Norman Golb. In this article, we should only have a sentence or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, better, we can explore the subject at Qumran, which already touches on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In their present shape all three articles neutral strike me as neutral--a good result from a heated debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.34.90 (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why the back and forth?

Jossi,

What is Dr. Golb's position on the Dead Sea Scrolls doing being discussed on Dr. Schniedewind's page? Wouldn't it be more appropriate on Dr. Golb's page? I certainly do not see paragraphs mentioning all of scholars that disagree with Dr. Golb on Dr. Golb's page. I mean, I guess I could discuss Dr. Jodi Magness' opposition to Dr. Golb's position on Dr. Golb's page, and then follow it with a few comments from published articles from Dr. Hanan Eshel, then a paragraph about Jean-Baptiste Humbert's disagreement, then one from Dr. Stephen Pfann, then Dr. Emmanuel Tov, etc. etc., but I personally don't feel that wouldn't be appropriate for Dr. Golb's page. Even though he's not an archaeologist, he is an established historian, whom I believe has done some credible research, especially with regard to the different scribal hands in the DSS and, of course, we agree that the site of Qumran was established as a fortress. But even though I do not agree with some of Dr. Golb's conclusions, I'm not going to trash him anonymously or attempt to make him look like any less of a scholar, especially on his own page.

I guess I'm just asking for some clarification. I want to be consistent. Should we allow all of the anonymous IP addresses that support Dr. Golb to critique Dr. Schniedewind on Dr. Schniedewind's page? If so, are others then free to critique Dr. Golb on his page, linking to and citing articles that disagree with Dr. Golb's positions? If Dr. Schniedewind's page is going to link to someone who disagrees with him, then Dr. Golb's page should allow for paragraphs talking about each of the scholars who disagree with him.

Of course, I don't want any of this. Quite personally, I'm tired of checking Dr. Schniedewind's page, only to see that his page has been edited by those who have confessed open opposition to his scholastic opinions. It gets old. I have never touched Dr. Golb's page, nor do I want to. I respect him, and don't really like all of this back and forth. Scholarly debate should take place in peer-reviewed journals and at academic sessions like ASOR, AAR, and SBL, not as anonymous postings to other scholars' wikipedia pages. I just ask the same courtesy be extended to Dr. Schniedewind that is being extended to Dr. Golb. Wiki articles should not be a place to trash others and their academic positions. They should be a place to state basic information about things, events, and people.

I guess I'm asking: what are the ground rules here? Should we add to Dr. Golb's page information about all those who disagree with him? Or, should we remove the pro-Golb edits from Dr. Schniedewind's page? Can we all agree to allow Dr. Golb's positions to be promoted on his page, and let Dr. Schniedewind's positions be stated on his page? How should we proceed?

And a few notes:

1) The best place for this 'debate' to take place is the Qumran page. But as you can see, I listed all of the alternative theories (and linked to their sources) months ago. That is the best place to discuss the competing views, not Dr. Schniedewind's or Dr. Golb's page. Can we agree upon that?

2) Dr. Schniedewind had nothing to do with the movie. I made it (check the credits). The review therefore has nothing to do with Dr. Schniedewind and should not appear on his page for that reason alone. The fact that Dr. Schniedewind is never mentioned by name in Dr. Golb's .pdf review should be evidence enough of this fact.

3) You are right to point out that Magen and Peleg never cite Norman Golb a single time in their preliminary report, even though they do subscribe to a Jerusalem origin theory of the DSS and the initial fortress theory, both of which are positions held by Dr. Golb. Magen and Peleg ultimately conclude differently than Dr. Golb (they believe the fortress was later converted to a pottery factory). Again, while Magen and Peleg hold two positions similar to Dr. Golb, they do not credit him for either of those suggestions.

Again, I'm not one to write much on this, nor do I ever respond to anonymous folks, so apologies in advance if I don't reply in a timely manner or at all to some or all comments.

Thanx Jossi. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep the scholarly disputes out of the biographical articles of Schniedewind and Golb altogether. These disputes can be explored and described at Qumran. Unless there are objections to this approach I will put this in effect on Monday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a few points should be made here

Jossi,

(1) If the views of a public figure, or a widely viewed media product produced under that figure's direction, are the object of controversy or debate, it is perfectly appropriate to mention it in an article about that figure. The "Virtual Qumran" film, produced by the Virtual Qumran Project which Dr. Schniedewind directs, has been projected to an estimated 450,000 people in a six-million-dollar public exhibit, and will soon be available to many more; so it certainly seems important to mention Dr Golb's review here.

(2) However, the statement mentioning the controversy must be (a) sourced, (b) kept brief (just as you said above: "only a sentence or two") and (c) neutral.

(3) The portion of the sentence quoting Golb on the museum exhibit should be dropped; it is irrelevant to the film produced by the Virtual Qumran Project.

(4) Bob Cargill's retaliatory straw-man argument about sourcing a range of traditional scroll scholars in the Golb article is unfounded: that wouldn't be keeping it brief and neutral at all. The Golb article as it stands explains that there is a controversy, in a perfectly appropriate manner.

(5) This being said, the sentence in this article about Dr. Schniedewind:

Other sources describe Golb's theories as going against scholarly consensus, as being the subject of a "lively debate" in Qumran studies," or as giving rise to a "tide of revisionist thinking,"

summarizes information from the article on Norman Golb and one wonders what it is doing here. Better would be a sentence like "other sources review the film favorably." I don't know where to look for such a source, but if Bob can find one it seems to me he should submit it. Then you would have an informative, neutral and appropriately brief paragraph reflecting the difference of opinion about the work-product of the project directed by Dr. Schniedewind.

(6) That Bob Cargill, who is Dr. Schniedewind's student, "made" the movie is besides the point. The film is known to convey Dr. Schniedewind's views about Qumran, as is clear from Schniedewind's role as director of the project, from the UCLA press release on the matter, and from the abundant number of newspaper articles in which Schniedewind and Cargill are interviewed together about the project. I can give sources if you like.

(7) Bob Cargill insists that he is the one who "made" the film, and this gives rise to an important conflict-of-interest issue that I feel obliged to address. Golb's review of the film raises an ethical question about a marginal statement in Mr. Cargill's film script which appears to refer to a secret policy of which no trace can be left in writing (see pp. 6-7 of the review). If, in the course of the review, a question has been raised as to whether Mr. Cargill, with Dr. Schniedewind's collaboration, engaged in ethical misconduct in the course of making the film (I am not saying he did, but this would certainly seem to be one implication of the question raised by Golb), then one must wonder why Mr. Cargill is trying to keep this source from being cited in a wikipedia article about the director of the Virtual Qumran project. The conflict of interest would be quite flagrant, and would certainly require some explanation.

(8) Finally, Bob Cargill says: "You are right to point out that Magen and Peleg never cite Norman Golb a single time in their preliminary report." I will say something about this in the Norman Golb discussion, but since Bob raises the issue here (where it is irrelevant), I repeat my basic points on that here: That Magen and Peleg never cite Golb by name is irrelevant, the theory they propose (that Qumran was a secular site and that the scrolls came from the Jerusalem region and were not written by any single sect within ancient Judaism) is almost exactly the same as Golb's theory. In fact, the New York Times article about Magen and Peleg specifically quotes Golb as saying that the site may indeed have been used as a pottery factory. Thus, the "difference" Bob highlights between Magen/Peleg and Golb is insignificant. (See the Norman Golb discussion for a few more points on this.).David Saunderfeld (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys ... Wikipedia is not a battleground for ideas. You can take these disputes to the scholarly realm, and not expect Wikipedia to be the forum for resolving your differences. As a third-party with no dog in this fight, I would encourage you and others to leave all the positioning of your scholarly disputes to the article on Qumran where it can be explored alongside other viewpoints, leaving this and Golb's article for biographical info only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Can sources about debates or controversies be included in living person articles

Forgive me for chiming in, but there is a difference between engaging in a war and informing the public that there is a war. Biographical wikipedia articles abound in informative statements of the kind. See, for example, the article on Barbara Thiering, where we read a vicious quotation from Geza Vermes, introduced in a manner entirely lacking in neutrality:

Academic Reception of her Work:

While Thiering's thesis attracted some controversy in the media when "Jesus the Man" was published in 1990, her ideas have not been accepted by her academic peers. In a response to a letter Thiering wrote to The New York Review of Books objecting to a review by Geza Vermes, Vermes summed up the academic reaction to her work:

"Professor Barbara Thiering's reinterpretation of the New Testament... has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering's use of the so-called "pesher technique," without substance."

And you were surprised at the language Golb used to criticize, not a human being, but a popular museum exhibit! Personally, I find the statements in bold quite abhorrent in a living-person biography, even though I happen to agree with them. Why should an uninformed reader believe that Geza Vermes has correctly "summed up the academic reaction"? Surely a better formula could have been found, such as "have been disputed by many of her academic peers." But I didn't know anyone was suggesting that such information should be entirely excluded from wikipedia articles.Critical Reader (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not. See Qumran, in which all significant viewpoints are presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know anyone was suggesting such info should be entirely excluded from living person articles: see, e.g., the Barbara Thiering article. Shouldn't you eliminate the above-quoted passage from the article about her and put it in the Qumran article?Critical Reader (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is my suggestion: that scholarly disputes be discussed in the articles about these subjects rather than in the scholar's biographical article. Given that we have such an article in Wikipedia (Qumran), my suggestion is that for NPOV, these are discussed there where these viewpoints can be presented alongside others. As for the Barbara Thiering article, I have no opinion. You can discuss that at that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this suggestion of yours hasn't been followed previously: it's not followed in the Thiering article; it's not followed, for example, in the article about Eric von Däniken where we read (quite appropriately, in my view) that "most in the scientific community have ignored or dismissed von Däniken's hypotheses"; and it hasn't been followed in many other articles as well.

So what we seem to have here is basically a new policy that you've created, which involves attaining NPOV by simply excluding info from living person articles, rather than by doing the hard work of drafting informative statements about scholarly reaction in a neutral manner. Shouldn't wiki establish a policy on this before a wiki editor imposes his own self-made policy on contributors who are doing their best, through a difficult discussion process, to make articles more informative in a neutral manner?Critical Reader (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I am trying to be helpful here and my suggestion is to describe the scholarly disputes between Schniedewind, Golb and all other Qumranologists in the Qumran article, leaving in this article and in Golb's article a short mention that there are disputes about the subject with a link to Further information: Qumran. See WP:SUMMARY form more information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting idea, and I understand your desire to take vigorous action to resolve this kind of dispute; but it gives rather peculiar results of which you are perhaps unaware.

An example of what respected, critical-minded scholars have said about Schniedewind's contribution to scholarship can be found in a review of one of his works by Dr. Yairah Amit of Tel Aviv University: "Schniedewind's attempt to ignore the question of who wrote this book [the Bible] that contains such disparate ideologies, to ignore the fact that writing down traditions is not the same as composing a work, and to ignore the complexity of every book in the Bible, remains unconvincing." (Review of Biblical Literature, 2005; Amit also describes some of Schniedewind's arguments as "quite strange," and observes that the marketing title of the work in question ["How the Bible Became a Book"] is essentially unrelated to its contents).

Now I wouldn't argue that such details ought to be inserted in a living person article, but we're really dealing with a total picture here; eventually all the omissions (ties with Christian evangelical institutions despite his position at UCLA; role in sensationalist media campaigns and in Virtual Qumran controversy, sharp criticism of his views by distinguished Jewish scholars) add up; and arguably the end result is a misleading article. Critical Reader (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, scholars have disputes and vigorous debates, and their work reviewed and criticized. Is that not what scholars do? A short bio article such as this one, needs to be careful in maintaining NPOV and avoiding undue weigh. If we are to discuss what Amit says, we first have to describe Schniedewind book in detail, for example. As for the "ties with Christian evangelical institutions", as asked before, please provide published information of these "ties" and their nature, ans spares us please the speculation. To be frank, I am growing tired of repeating these arguments, and I am not interested in fending your attempts to use Wikipedia as an extension of your blogs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, of course scholars "have disputes." The fact that they have disputes, however, is not a reason for failing to inform readers, in an appropriately accurate and neutral fashion, of the roles played by specific scholars in those specific disputes. I'm not sure if you are suggesting the contrary, but if you are, I must disagree.

As for your suggestion that I am "repeating" arguments, you seem to miss my point here, which is that a total picture emerges from everything that has been brought to light here. I believe that if you think about that, instead of breaking everything down into isolated, unrelated points of dispute, you will begin to see what is going on here (in fact, I'm quite sure you already have begun to see, but you seem to be so annoyed by the matter that you just want it to go away).

I also have to say that I don't engage in "speculation." Dr. Schniedewind was listed on the UHL website both as adjunct professer and advisor until I raised the issue here, after which his name was removed. That's a fact, not speculation. If you weren't bent on trivializing the matter to get rid of the dispute, you might contact the institution in question and request information from them as to the dates of his service there. I believe such a request should come from an official wikipedia editor, not from me.

Finally, whether or not I'm involved in "blogging" activities, this is really an ad hominem point you're making because you're annoyed at me. My purpose here is quite clearly to encourage wikipedia to inform readers, in an appropriately accurate and neutral fashion, of the roles played by specific scholars in specific disputes. I suppose that depending on one's perspective, I've either been a nuisance, or done people a service. I obviously prefer to think the latter, and I'm sure there are many who would agree with me.Critical Reader (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to contribute to Qumran, in which all these disputes can be described in a neutral manner, alognside all other viewpoints on the subject. Readers can be informed there much better than in a bio article about this or another scholar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that Amit's statement (for example) has nothing to do with Qumran or the Dead Sea Scrolls. That topic would have to be dealt with in the article on the Bible or somewhere like that. Incidentally, I have created an article on the Virtual Qumran film and linked it in this article. Should help with the present discussion.Jacob Stein (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have responded there. One thing though, I see several people editing this article most of them with a similar POV and exclusively this and related articles. I refer you to WP:SOCK, so that you can become aware of our policy regarding multiple accounts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm glad several people have a similar point of view--frankly it's not surprising; all sorts of people in the field have been notifying one another of this page by email. Rest assured, however, that after my experiences here I would never have foolishly created a separate article on the Virtual Qumran project, knowing full well that it would immediately be converted into an advertisement promoting Mr. Cargill; that blatantly false statements would be introduced under the pretext that they are sourced while other equally sourced statements would be excluded under pretexts connected with their content; in a word, that the usual arbitrary application of existing principles and creation of new principles would occur. A hint for Jacob Stein: don't waste your time, your article will in essence be treated as if it's a living person article about Bob Cargill. Next time, try and get yourself into someone's good graces on wikipedia before creating an article--who knows, they might even post your picture for you one day.Critical Reader (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What is with you people? Why the animosity against Schniedewind, Cargill, the San Diego Museum and that movie? All I can see is that there is one person that wrote a scathing review of an unpublished script of the film (did the writer ever watch the film at all? I could not see any comments about it), mainly complaining about the authors not including new research and not crediting him for something or another; and complaining about the San Diego Museum for not carrying a word of caution for its thousands of visitors about his view that the filem is "fictitious". In between the lines one can read and feel the disdain, anger and indignation of the writer, that IMO reflects more poorly on him than the other way around. Also, I have yet to see any other source anywhere that describes the film the way this person does it. Is there something I am missing here? Where is the chorus of indignation raising from the community of scholars that study Qumran about this "blatantly misleading" film? Are there other unspoken issues at play here, maybe political, religious, personal or other? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't my beef, but did it occur to you that in putting out the above paragraph (despite your proclamation in the discussion above that "wikipedia is not a battleground") you have made your own personal views on this topic quite clear for everyone to see? How can I or anyone else trust you to edit my contributions in a neutral way, when you yourself are so obviously full of "disdain"?Jacob Stein (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What did I say that made you have that perception? I am simply stating that (a) I have yet to find a source other than Golb's article with that kind of criticism of the script, the museum and the authors; (b) made comments on how the article reads for a neophyte like me. Sorry if that came across as being "full of disdain". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and you forgot to reply to my questions:

1. Why the animosity against Schniedewind, Cargill, the San Diego Museum and that movie?
2. Are there other unspoken issues at play here, maybe political, religious, personal or other?

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Did Jossi actually think no one would be watching this discussion? Did he think no one would realize he's a virtual sock-p for Bob Cargill?

Once again, he's revealed a profound lack of regard for the truth, making it quite clear that all of his contributions to this discussion over the past few months have been motivated by his decision to use his position as wiki editor to come to the defense of a biased museum exhibit and those who participated in creating it.

Let's see how, acting against his own constant insistence that wikipedia is not the place for such discussions, he does this here. Let's take his statements and omissions one by one:

(1) "Political, religious, personal or other issues?" Anyone can see there's something else he has casually (but intentionally) left off his list, namely, the ethical responsibility of those who have taken on the task of informing the public in a massive, six-million-dollar museum exhibit, simply to tell the truth and provide information on current controversies in a neutral manner. Jossi's consistent strategy is to beat about the bush and avoid this issue with a smokescreen of discussions about wikipedia rules, some of which he arbitrarily invents ad hoc to serve his purpose.

(2) Jossi states that Golb is "complaining" about new research not being included and about the public not being informed that the film reflects Dr. Schniedewind's personal opinion rather than the current, polarized state of research resulting from the publication of Hirschfeld's book and the official Israel Antiquities Authority report of Magen and Peleg. Let's focus on the word "complaining." Jossi is adept at using such words to belittle the significance of things he feigns not being interested in when he wants to change the topic--such as the basic ethical principles that regulate the progress of scientific research. If the research conclusions of the past decade are "not included" in the film; if the film's authors have violated their responsibility to tell the truth and instead used the film to seduce thousands of people into thinking that the personal opinion of Dr. Schniedewind (who is not even an archaeologist) is the current state of research; then clearly the public is being misinformed in an egregious manner and we are faced with an ethical, scientific and institutional scandal.

(3) Jossi also states that Golb "complains" about not being credited "for something or other." Jossi repeatedly uses phrases like "something or other" to convey his lack of interest in the substance of an issue when he wants to distract attention from it. If the authors of the film have chosen, for secret reasons they "never write down," to misinform the public and, in essence, defame a scholar by attributing the credit due him to someone else, then clearly we are faced with ethical misconduct of the worst type, and the casual manner in which Jossi ignores this problem confronting the film's authors is not to his credit.

(4) Jossi sneers at what he presents as Golb's "disdain, anger and indignation." Note how he adds "disdain" to the other two words. If the authors of the film have indeed set out to misinform the public by carefully concealing and distorting the current state of research (and Golb's article shows how they do this over and over again), then Golb is obviously justified in expressing anger and indignation. But who has shown "disdain" here? Is it Golb, who has been obliged to enumerate the facts omitted and distorted in the film, or is the authors of the film who have taken 450,000 people for fools, setting forth a series of demonstrably false assertions for a secret "reason" that can't be written down? Which would be worse, Golb's purported "disdain" for the authors of such a film, or the disdain for basic principles of neutrality and freedom of debate shown by the film's authors?

(5) Jossi tries to paint Golb as an isolated figure, a standard technique being used by various defenders of the old Qumran-Essene theory. Everyone knows it is nonsense, a ploy being used by unscrupulous people to try and justify their systematic abuse of power. Science doesn't advance by votes or "choruses" of protest, but by whether the facts support the claims being made. Particarly given the obvious impact of Hirschfeld's book and the official Israel Antiquities Authority report of Magen and Peleg, everyone in the field immediately reads Golb's articles when they come out on the Oriental Institute website, and no one else needs to say a word for everyone to realize that this film has now been discredited.

(6) Note that Golb's article on scroll origins was one of only two on the topic included in the Cambridge History of Judaism, and this, even before Hirschfeld, Magen and Peleg. For Jossi, this is of course insignificant, no doubt because he doesn't hear a "chorus" of people defending the Jerusalem theory. But as we all know, Jossi is adept at levelling "sources" when it serves his purpose, treating (for example), the Chicago Jewish News as if it were on the same level as the New York Times; or the Cambridge History of Judaism as if it were on the same level as any other "source" he can find on-line; or a lengthy review by a major scholar in the field as if it were mere "reception" on the same level as newspaper items (which themselves were based on a UCLA press release obviously put together with the collaboration of the film's authors).

(7) Worse than any of this, however, is the fact that Jossi has obviously chosen to take sides in this debate, blatantly expressing his own "opinions" on the substance of the issues and arbitrarily using his power as an official wikipedia editor to impose his own subjective evaluation of the evidence on readers who put their trust in him. Doesn't he realize that in the end he has only created further embarrassment for the Schniedewind and Cargill team he has chosen to champion (even to the point of fetching a photograph of Cargill to insert in a newly created article about their film), obviously for personal motives? In the interest of common decency and the truth, he should remove himself from this discussion and focus his editorial efforts elsewhere.David Saunderfeld (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I have no more "power" that any of other editor in this article;
2. There has been an obvious and concerted effort by several single-purpose accounts, some of which have been identified as sockpuppets, to make the same arguments as those made in a variety of blogs and comments to media articles on the subject;
3. I have no intention to recuse myself from editing any article that I find of interest and will collaborate with any other editor that cares about this project enough to aim for a solid article on the subjects it treats;
4. These are not articles about the dead scrolls origins, but about a project of UCLA, the product of which is now exhibited at the San Diego Museum. The discussion about the dead scrolls is available at Qumran.
5. Ad hominem arguments and claims of bad faith on my part, will be summarily ignored.
6. If you and others believe that the public has or is being mis-informed by these people, the San Diego Museum, or the film made by the UCLA project, make your points in other fora than Wikipedia (as you have already done from what I can see in the interwebs). Raising hell here will not do, I am afraid. See WP:SOAP;
7. And lastly, please spare us with the rhetoric. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, this is not my beef, but Jossi's paragraph, in which he admits ("IMO") what his views are, is obviously full of disdain (referring to concerned citizens with "what is it with you people?", seeking to interpret their concern as "animosity," referring to Golb as "the writer," coming out with an amateurish judgment that his critique of the film "reflects poorly on" him, etc.), and his blindness to it itself reveals a great deal.Jacob Stein (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC);

Yes... I should not have made that comment... I have refactored it. Adding oil to the fire was unwise. My arguments stand without it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I would have told Jacob Stein and Mr. Saunderfeld not to waste their time. Even though Jossi has "added oil to the fire," Jossi will obviously not recuse himself. He will either say "make your points in other fora" or he will try to make it into a debate about the Dead Sea Scrolls that should be discussed in another article. To the best of his ability, he will carefully protect Cargill and Schniedewind from any mention of sources critical of their conduct. Even in the article about the film, he will carefully eliminate any sourced quotes that raise the question of the ethical duties involved in public custodianship. He eliminated an entire portion on this matter from the article on the San Diego Natural History museum, which he also treated as if it were a living person article. Try inserting a reference in that article to Golb's detailed, 25-page review of the exhibit's catalog (see http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/dss_review_sandiego_catalogue_2007.pdf), and you will see that he will find a pretext to eliminate that as well.Critical Reader (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for the assistance of editors from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East, as I see that, despite my arguments, people here do not seem understand them. I will also advise any editor here to avoid canvassing and using alternative accounts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a WikiProject Ethics or Controversies or Museums or Freedom of Debate, but it would perhaps be more appropriate to ask them for assistance instead of constantly changing the topic. This is not about the Dead Sea Scrolls, it's about the conduct of individuals granted custodianship over scientifically disputed documents, when preparing a public exhibit and a film to be projected in it. Everybody has their own opinion about something like this, but the question is what are the responsibilities of the exhibitors with respect to things like the Magen and Peleg report.Critical Reader (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP and take your disputes to a public forum, which this is not. Any further use of these pages to advance your personal opinions will be refactored from here and moved to your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)