Talk:Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour

Untitled
The source does not support the statement. The source says "Support to bring the Dead Sea Scrolls to San Diego, with specific funding for a virtual presentation of Qumran, the site where the Scrolls were found. $100,000. San Diego, CA." Please stay close to the sources and re-add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if we simply left out the $100,000 figure? I'm not sure why you say the source doesn't support the statement--that's clearly what the money was for. See Robert Cargill's personal wiki page: "Mr. Cargill was recently awarded a $100,000 research grant from the San Diego Natural History Museum and Steven Spielberg’s Righteous Persons Foundation for dissertation work on the Qumran Visualization Project." This is Mr. Cargill's own statement, yet his page is presumably not an eligible source.


 * I am just asking to stay close to the source and not mis-represent them. The way it reads does not seem to be the way you wrote it. It is not clear. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you offer a "clearer" version yourself, instead of simply deleting my sentence?Jacob Stein (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Golb insert
I disagree with your addition about Golb. That information is available in the Qumran article, where you got it from. It is irrelevant to the question of the film on which this article is focused, and it confuses the topic here. This article is not about Norman Golb, it's about this film. Instead, we should insert a sentence saying "For further information on Dr. Golb's role in Dead Sea Scrolls research and the Qumran controversy, see the article on Qumran."Jacob Stein (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think that is important material. Golb asserts that scholarly opinion is overwhelmingly on his side, when that is actually disputed. We need that rebuttal for context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Golb does not assert that "scholarly opinion is overwhelmingly on his side." He says, for example, that the film "continues to defend the traditional theory despite recent vigorous opposition to it by seasoned archaeologists who have carefully reexamined the site during a decade of excavations there." He states that the claims made in the film are not consonant with "the show’s initial claim that (a) “the entire reconstruction is based upon archaeological fact” and (b) that it “takes into account all of the viable theories about the origin of the structure at Qumran.”"

What he is saying is clearly that the film is biased towards one scholarly opinion, rather than guiding the public towards understanding the scholarly debate about Qumran in the light of the excavations of the past decade.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree, for the reasons stated. Your insertion in fact distracts readers from the specific nature of the claim made by Golb in his review of this film, and creates the unfounded implication that this is about whether Golb is right or wrong on the question of Qumran. A dispute about scholarly opinion or Golb is best discussed in the appropriate article.Jacob Stein (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a dispute, it needs to be properly framed. This article is not about Golb's opinion of the film. If you want that material in the article (Golb's review), it needs to be accompanied with text that describes the dispute. See WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, we can have this version, or this version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, but I can't figure out the differences between the two versions. Would you mind cutting and pasting them here so I can see what you're referring to?

As for framing the dispute, I agree, but the problem is what is the nature of the frame. The dispute concerning this film is not about "who is right on Qumran," it's about whether the film is neutral, objective, and up-to-date on the archaeological data, as the film claims to be at the beginning. It seems to me that Golb's point is quite simply that the makers of the film are attempting to indoctrinate people into following one theory, rather than helping them understand the debate over Qumran. If we make this into a debate over Qumran, we distort the nature of what he's saying and mislead readers. Why on earth would we want to do that?Jacob Stein (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, lets keep this version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your tactic here is to stage an argument, introducing material that obviously has no place in this article, and when I point that out you suggest a "compromise" that consists in removing nearly my entire paragraph under the pretext of "undue weight," which in this case simply reflects your personal opinion about Golb's criticism of the film (see your remarks on the Schniedewind page, which make your personal opinion very clear--shall I quote them here?). You are obviously very clever and experienced at this kind of thing, but you won't fool me.Jacob Stein (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Script
A statement made in an edit, refers to a script of the film. I read that the film is silent. Has the a script of the film been published? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, the script is read over and over again outloud to the audience at the museum (a project half-million people by year's end). Golb's article refers to the "text as printed by the museum." This seems to imply that the text was distributed by the museum, or that Golb obtained a copy of it from the museum. I have no idea if it's officially "published" or not on paper, but I assume it wasn't because I haven't seen it anywhere.Jacob Stein (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmmm... If there is no script, how can someone quote a script? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that Golb, a well-known scholar at the University of Chicago, would somehow fabricate a script? Has anyone denied that the statements he quotes are in the script? I don't think it's our role to second-guess him on that, unless someone associated with the museum or the Virtual Qumran project denies it.Jacob Stein (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am not implying that... god forbid. Just curious about it. When was Golb's article published? It does not have a date in the website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Golb's discussion of marginal communications in the script

 * The article refers to "correspondence contained in the margin of the unpublished script". I am curious about what this "correspondence" is and about the asserted fact that the script is "unpublished". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See Golb's article, p. 6, describing a communication of several sentences introduced into the margin of the script at the point where the show transitions to an aerial view of the main site (p. 5 of the text as printed by the museum). Here the question for the producers and authors appears to have been how much space, and what kind of personal attribution, to allow with respect to the identification of the Kh. Qumran site as a Hasmonaean fortress. The original author of the script here marginally states: “I would really like to mention [Prof. Yizhar] Hirschfeld’s name here…. Two reasons: 1) He developed Golb’s suggestion into a theory. 2) It will shield us from criticism that we didn’t source a key pillar of the argument.” The author follows this with the unusual statement: “There’s a third reason, but I never write it down.”

Golb then discusses what he regards as the ethical implications of this marginal "communication." As stated, I have been assuming the script is unpublished because I can't find it anywhere.Jacob Stein (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not touch that material, then. A margin note in an unpublished script? No. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See your own statement directly below:

In Wikipedia we only inform readers of what has been published. See Verifiability. That source says that, and that is verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, "what has been published" is Golb's analysis of marginal statements in an unpublished script. Golb's article is a source. "That source says that, and that is verifiable."

Therefore I am requesting that you please reinsert the information you arbitrarily deleted, unless you want me to conclude you are hypocritically following and not following rules according to whether their application suits your personal goals.Jacob Stein (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I offered two versions:
 * This one:
 * And this one:
 * The first one is the current one, and the more appropriate as per WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The first one is the current one, and the more appropriate as per WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The first one is the current one, and the more appropriate as per WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My claim is that we have an obvious case of undue weight here. Please read in detail WP:Undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the appropriate version is the following


 * Jacob Stein (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your minimalist version, arbitrarily deleting eveything from "Focusing" to "show," fails to provide the reader with information my version contains. Compare that with the way you've packed the article with further information from news items, and your non-neutral aim, to defend the film and make the article into an advertisement for it, becomes entirely clear. Your "claim" of undue weight is being used to justify unduly weighing this article in favor of the film. Show me one article by any scholar, or even a statement by the film's authors, defending the film against Golb's criticisms.Jacob Stein (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You show me where Golb's article has been cited, quoted, referred to, or mentioned by other scholars in the field. I looked but could not find any mentions besides a few blogs. If the authors and the San Diego museum decided not to respond, they must have their reasons, which I do not intend to speculate about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"They must have their reasons"--here again you make your attitude very clear, because you imply that they have a good reason. That's not a rational criterion to ground unduly weighting this article in favor of the film, it's just pure speculation on your part. Their reason could be shame, or a basic incapacity to come up with responses. Normally a failure to respond gives rise to such implications--it's their own fault if they can't justify what they've done. By attempting to justify their conduct and unduly weighting the article in their favor despite the fact that they haven't responded, you are obviously misleading the public, and this again makes it clear that you have personal opinions that have led you to take sides on this topic.Jacob Stein (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, please stop seeing through tinted glasses. You asked a speculative question, and I answered my own speculation. Maybe we should avoid these type of arguments in the future. And please stop assuming a hidden agenda, which I do not have. I am not misleading the public, that is laughable. And yes, I am starting to have my opinions on the subject after reading the material available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask a question, as you can see by reading my sentence. You are the one asking questions about this kind of thing (see the end of the page below). I merely pointed out that you have outweighed a critical review by a major expert in the field, with a bunch of news items that were the product of a press release put out by UCLA, the institution the authors of the film are affiliated with. And then you remove three lines from my description of the critical review in question, because of your admitted personal "opinions" on the substance of the matter. I would be grateful if you could please reinsert my three lines that you arbitrarily took out--I spent time writing them, and you haven't given a good reason for eliminating them.Jacob Stein (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Script, not film

 * I read Golb's article again, and it is evident that the review is of the script and not of the film. I have corrected this in the article's text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.Jacob Stein (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Long citation in footnote
I object to this citation. You're padding the article with quotations that themselves misinform the public. Only a small number of scrolls, and nowhere near 30% of the 900 found, mention a "yahad" group. Traditional scrolls scholars theorize that many of the scrolls were written by the group referred to in that small number, and the result is a sentence like this that entirely misinforms readers.Jacob Stein (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia we only inform readers of what has been published. See Verifiability. That source says that, and that is verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Photograph
I also object to this photograph, which I find vulgar and which in my opinion amounts to an advertisement for the film and its author. Incidentally, are you a friend of Robert Cargill? Forgive me for saying this, but it seems like he is feeding you material to use in this article. At any rate, if you insist on including a photograph, I would recommend using one of Cargill and Schniedewind together, there are many of them on-line in the news items.Jacob Stein (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to call it a night now. Why do I have the feeling that by the time I return here tomorrow, the article will be transformed in such a way as to make it into a pure advertisement for this film?

Let's remember that this is not a living person article...Jacob Stein (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The photo is of the director and author of the film, Why not to use it? You started the article, not me, so please do not complain about me expanding the article so that it describes the subject properly. And no, I am not a friend of Robert Cargill, never met him. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, some questions for you: Do you have you a personal animosity against the author or the film? Are you related in any way or manner to Norman Golb? Are you in any way or manner related to User:Critical Reader, User:Philip Kirby, Harold Milton, and other such users editing these articles? Should I request another WP:SSP on these accounts? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The photo I used is in the public domain. If you can find a photo of the two scholars together, that is in the public domain, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your questions: I'm in no way "related" to any of those people. My aim here has been to help out in the fascinating argument I and presumably many others have been following on the Schniedewind discussion page. I have done this with a single aim: providing the facts in a serious and neutral manner. You, on the other hand, are clearly bent on hiding facts that trouble you personally, while including false and misleading information under the pretext that it's "sourced." You have hidden the fact that Golb has criticized marginal communications in the film script; you have hidden the fact that he has drawn certain conclusions from those communications. Please put back the information about those facts, which I sourced with the page number in his article.Jacob Stein (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And I replied as well. You have "unduly weighted" this article in favor of the film, giving more attention to a bunch of news articles than to to a full-length review by a major specialist in the field. Look at your massive quote in the footnote.Jacob Stein (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the film and as such the majority of the material needs to be about it. The review of the script of the film by one person, which is unique in its contents and which has not been referred, cited or mentioned, by no other expert in the field, should only be mentioned as a short summary, if at all. You are welcome to add text to the footnotes, if that text helps with verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Five lines in an article of 23 lines (not including your massive footnote), didn't need to be reduced to two lines. First you expanded it to a massive paragraph with all kinds of irrelevant info available in another article, and when I objected to that, you reduced it to two lines. Your tactic is clear.Jacob Stein (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The footnote can be removed. Several questions remains unanswered: Why is that Golb's article not mentioned anywhere? Why is that no one of the scholars that study the subject have joined Golb in in the critique of the script or film? Why has not the media picked up this story?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the footnote should be removed because it is obviously intended to support the film; as for your questions here, I find them irrelevant. The answer could be a combination of shame on the part of the people involved; lack of any reason on any scholar's part to "join in" (they don't have a wikipedia "battleground" philosophy--it's enough for them to simply read the thing and take it in); and lack of interest in the media. The original media campaign was conducted by UCLA--all the news items were based on their press release. Do you expect UCLA to conduct a new campaign based on Golb's review? The important thing is that the article exists, it's a source, it's by a major specialist in the field, and it raises questions about this film that the public should be aware of.Jacob Stein (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No. We have a case of undue weight here. There are exactly four URIs that mention that article in Google. One is the article itself, two are from pages that hosts the article in the Chicago University's site, and the other one from a blog. I looked in published Journals archives, news archives, and other databases and found nothing. OTOH, you can find about 400 links all very much alike, most of them blog posts, or comments to media articles, in which Golb's review is mentioned, such a this, this, and this. That solidifies my artgument that we have a very obvious case of undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is another silly ad hoc argument on your part to try and justify removing three lines from my perfectly reasonable, informative five-line paragraph. Even one URL mention is enough to make the article into a source that has obviously been read by hundreds of specialists in the field. In fact many of us have seen it linked on all sorts of blogs which I could refer you to, but the point is irrelevant. Funded with 100,000 dollars, the authors of the film conducted a press campaign. You give undue weight to the "news" items that resulted from that campaign, and carefully remove any mention of the important ethical allegation raised by Golb. At least put it in a footnote, otherwise you are obviously taking sides, defending this film on account of your own admitted personal "opinions" and on the basis of an ad hoc pretextual argument.Jacob Stein (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I am now going to take off--I don't plan to hover around my computer all day trying to deal with your admitted personal bias. As far as I'm concerned, you're obviously abusing your authority to help out a friend of yours.Jacob Stein (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I already said to you that I am not a friend of any of the protagonists. Also note that I have no authority in this article: yes, I am an administrator of Wikipedia, but I cannot exercise any of my admin privileges in articles in which I am actively editing. I reading some of the blogs and comments to these blog posts, I now see that there is a vigorous (may I say vicious) debate about Golb's views on this film in the interwebs. One think I do intend to do is not to allow the animosity of that debate to spill into Wikipedia: I have seen it before in other articles about which there are strong POVs at play: it does not end up well if you let it fester. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, I am an administrator of Wikipedia, but I cannot exercise any of my admin privileges in articles in which I am actively editing."

But you did exactly that on the San Diego Natural History Museum article. First you edited it, removing an entire portion (on the Scrolls exhibit) that wasn't to your liking, and then you blocked it, so no one could reinsert the portion. Other wikipedia editors before you had accepted that portion of the article and insisted that differences about it needed to be resolved in discussion. You violated this basic principle of resolving differences in discussion, instead using your authority to impose a partisan result.

At this point, in light of the 25-page review of the exhibit catalogue by Golb which is a viable source, I am requesting that you re-open that article for editing. I would also like to draw your attention to my comment at the end of the Qumran discussion area, on your inappropriately partisan insertion of a lengthy quotation from a book by Magness in a portion of the Qumran article where it does not belong. It will be met by equally lengthy quotations from Hirschfeld, Magen and Peleg refuting the various elements of her statement, unless you remove it.Critical Reader (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not protect that article, check its history. When I intervened at the San Diego Natural History Museum I was not actively editing any of these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not play games with words. You unprotected that article so you could remove the portion you didn't like, despite Moreschi's decision that further disputes were to be resolved in discussion. Your "intervention" came nearly three months after the debate on that page. The implication was clear: you would not tolerate that portion of the article. You behaved like a tyrant instead of discussing the matter first. I recall that the page was again protected back then after your editing, and I don't see anything in the history area about who did that--therefore I assume it was you, that you merely "unprotected" it momentarily to remove the material you didn't like. And since you're no longer "actively" editing the page, you now have the "authority" to protect it again, right? Not only do you know the wikipedia rules, but you know how to play with them to make the result fit your purposes.Critical Reader (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The San Diego Natural History Museum is not protected, and I did not protect it. I will not respond to ad hominems and I advice you to read our policy on civility. Any further such comments, will be reported for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have now again removed the section on the controversy from that article, instead of discussing the matter first or changing the title "controversy" to something else. Who is being uncivil here? Do you or do you not have the authority to arbitrarily delete my work and impose your personal opinion on what constitutes a "controversy"?Critical Reader (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Help requested
I have asked for editors participants in the WikiProject Ancient Near East to assist with this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Virtual Qumran.jpg
Image:Virtual Qumran.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair use rationale has been provided. The owner of bot that placed that tag has been informed of the mistakes is making. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for photo of Robert Cargill
The photograph of Robert Cargill should be deleted--it has nothing to do with the "reception" of the film, but is rather intended to advertise the film and to promote the film's author. The endearing, smiling photo implies that the film's "reception" has been favorable, which apparently is not the case. The proper place for this photo is on Mr. Cargill's personal userpage, where Jossi lifted it from.Critical Reader (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop, this is becoming ridiculous. The article is about a film created by that person, and a photo that is in the public domain, can be certainly used in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that's "ridiculous" here is the photo, for the reasons stated. There is a well-known wikipedia policy against advertising; furthermore, the photo creates the impression that the reception of the film has been favorable. Please remove the photo, or I will. Alternatively, you can replace it with a photo in which Mr. Cargill is not smiling, and situate it in an appropriate portion of the article. Please remember that we are to resolve editing disputes in a civil manner.Critical Reader (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Find an alternative photo, that is in the public domain, and I will not oppose replacing the current photo if it is better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete the photo again, unless you find an alternative photo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I will tolerate the photo for now, since you have moved it to another section. But drop the bold imperatives, you have no "authority" to impose your will and if it still advertises the film, it should be removed.Critical Reader (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have as much authority as needed to remove vandalism from articles and deletions that are vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, it's not vandalism to remove a photo that advertises a product. Was it vandalism for you to remove the entire portion on the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit controversy from the article on the San Diego History Museum? Do you have authority to commit vandalism?Critical Reader (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than minutiae editing here, and given that you are familiar with Golb and his work, why don't you puy some of your fervor into expanding Norman Golb, that needs a lot of work to present the work of that man, his theories, ideas, etc, as well as expanding the article I started a few days ago on Golb's Who Wrote The Dead Sea Scrolls?: The Search For The Secret Of Qumran? The latter needs a summary section in which main aspects of each chapter are described. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not cross post. I have replied your comment at Talk:Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29 where it can be followed up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
There is no need to put criticism in separate sections. That is deprecated. For NPOV we place all reviews, and viewpoints positive, negative, and neutral together. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Show me wikipedia's policy statement on this particular problem.

The news accounts have no "point of view" whatsoever, they are all products of the press campaign engaged in by UCLA. Therefore, the term "reception" does not fit them.

There is an obvious difference between news items interviewing the makers of the film, and a scientific review of the film by a scholar.

You could change "Criticism" to "Reviews" for NPOV. The problem is that as of now, there is only one review that we know of. You could say "Review," but that just sounds odd (possibly because it's ambiguous, as in "let's review what we've just said").

We can also say "Review by Norman Golb," which would be entirely NPOV and accurate. Unless you object on solid grounds, I will do that. Critical Reader (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I've changed it to "Reviews," adding a sentence to the effect that as of present, no other reviews are known to exist. This is a simply factual statement with NPOV. That way, if other reviews come out, they can simply be added. But there is no excuse whatsover for lumping scientific reviews together with news reports. News reports based on UCLA press releases and interviews are not "neutral reviews," they are at best news reports and at worst the products of a promotional campaign for the film, with no independent reporting by the journalists involved. Let's have a little common sense here.Critical Reader (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A Review section may be OK, but your last statement in that section cannot be used as it violates WP:NOR as we do not know If there is one review or 200 hundreds. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how the UCLA press release is "reception." Produced and disseminated by the institution where Schniedewind is affiliated, it was clearly designed to promote the product of a member of that insitution. As such, it is not "reception," but promotion.Critical Reader (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to summary. Now please help and expand the Reception and Summary sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the article is now decent, apart from the smile on the photo which is a well-known advertising tool. You could expand the news coverage report with various articles that were, I recall, originally listed on Robert Cargill's userpage (he has since deleted them, why I don't know), but I believe most or all of them are based on the UCLA press release and that would have to be mentioned.Critical Reader (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Norman Golb review
There is absolutely no good reason for deleting the paragraph on this review. The grounds offered (that the review was not "peer reviewed" and that it's written by someone who has a different POV) are absurd. The review is entirely valid per wikipedia rules and if it's not mentioned this entire article becomes an advertisement for the film rather than a neutral encyclopedia article.Bobberhelp (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SPS for information on how to treat such sources. If you can find some sources that cites from Golb's review, that we can include it. I have not found such sources, but if you do please post them here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The premise of Jossi's statement above (that Golb's review is "self-published") is false. The review was published on the Oriental Institute website of the University of Chicago. The Oriental Institute does not belong to Golb and, like any university, has strict requirements as to what can or cannot appear on its site. Where does wikipedia say that articles published on university websites are "self-published"?Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112092440/http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/about.html to http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/about.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605115952/http://www.international.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=72510 to http://www.international.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=72510
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229114031/http://www.righteouspersons.org/grants/archive.php?pageID=2 to http://www.righteouspersons.org/grants/archive.php?pageID=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013012102/http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/ to http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)