Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls/Archive 2

Conflict of Interest, museum exhibit controversy
Will user "XKV8R" please abstain from removing the newly inserted section, based on published sources that easily pass wikipedias standards?

I do not know what ongoing "sockpuppet" case XKV8R is referring to. XKV8R (see his userpage) is Robert Cargill, who was personally involved in creating the San Diego exhibit discussed in the published National Post correspondence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, this entire attempt to include ng's criticisms in the dss article has already been addressed, leading to the content being removed, and also leading to several nyu ip addresses and aliases being linked to a sock/meat puppet campaign to promote/defend ng and criticize dss exhibitions. are we really going to go through this every new exhibit? i'll tell you what - let's do the 3 revert thing, get some admins in here, show them the already decided case, and be done with it. the material is an ad for the museum, and therefore does not belong in the main article. your multi-line rebuttal linking to all sort of ng postings also does not belong in the body of the article, since it is highly tangental to the dss exhibitions, not the dss themselves. but of course, this has already been debated and decided. must we do it again?? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

5) Conclusion: the ongoing museum exhibit controversy, reported on in a major Canadian newspaper, is perfectly relevant, and by no means "tangential," to this article about the texts that are at the center of the controversy. Therefore I am undoing XKV8R's deletion of the added section.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * so is it rachel or emily? lol. again, this issue has been addressed by wiki admins. it's all here in the talk page and in the archives. that said, you're talking about sources about exhibitions and blogs about controversy surrounding the exhibits, not the dss themselves. this has already been judged and settled. i shall continue to monitor the article and revert it to its initial state. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

some of the alias used are as follows:


 * 1) “Critical Reader” User_talk:Critical_Reader (created Oct. 5, 2006)
 * 2) “Ethical concern” User_talk:Ethical_Concern (created 10:30, Aug. 1, 2007)
 * 3) “Harold Milton” User_talk:Harold_Milton (created 21:32, Nov. 16, 2007)
 * 4) “Philip Kirby” User_talk:Phillip_Kirby (created 14:12, Nov. 19, 2007)
 * 5) “David Saunderfeld” User_talk:David_Saunderfeld (created 19:02, Nov. 21, 2007)
 * 6) “Jacob Stein” User_talk:Jacob_Stein (created 10:10, Nov. 24, 2007)
 * 7) “Myriamyst” User_talk:Myriamyst (created 20:39, Nov. 29, 2007)
 * 8) “Extratheologian” User_talk:Extratheologian (created 12:48, November 29, 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

Attention wikipedia administrators:

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

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

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

I will continue to put the relevant information from the National Post back in, until XKV8R gives me a rational explanation why it shouldn't be included.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * this has nothing to do with me. the case has already been adjudicated and it was determined that ng's and the alias' criticisms of the exhibitions are not germane. see above. wiki admins have the cross-list ip info. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * once again, since you claim that you 'don't know' what this is all about, let me explain it: see above.
 * if you have issues, go get an admin, and they will re-examine this case. of course, i'll send them your emails, and they will, once again, see that this is the same thing all over again. but nice try...
 * go get an admin, make your case, and let them decide. until then, i'll revert. and i shall revert from this point forward with a simple 'asked and answered'. you understand legal objections, no?IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Excuse me, you are the one who, despite your conflict of interest, keeps removing a perfectly germane section I have inserted into this article. If you have a problem with it, go contact the administrators yourself. They will see that you are unfairly removing my section without even previously discussing it. I hope they will have the decency to see that your accusations are trumped up to prevent any information about this controversy in which you are involved from coming out.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * since the only people who are reading this are you and i, a few admins, and a few other interested parties, i'm content to just go back and forth. it's annoying, but when has that not been the case? lol. of course, you're not about to go get an admin to review this, because you know that they know what we both know. lol.IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about; if you have time, contact the administrators yourself, I would hope they will have the sense to see through your charade. I have a paper to prepare that is due on Friday and I'm not going to get involved in this nonsense. In the meantime, you are violating wikipedia policy by removing the perfectly germane section I've added to this article without discussion and adjudication. When I see you've deleted my section, I will undo your deletion. If a vandal deletes it, I will reinsert it.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * no need. asked and answered. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For the both of you: If you keep warring back-and-forth on the article, you will end up blocked from editing. Since you're now both aware that there's a minimum 24 hour block involved, further edit-warring may well result in a block of even longer duration. If you would, consider editing a different subject area for a while, preferably where the other doesn't edit. Thanks. Kylu (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * thanx! IsraelXKV8R (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Controversy involving recent and upcoming exhibitions

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

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

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

Hi all, I've been taking a look at this case and I feel that there are issues from both sides. IsraelXKV8R, thank you for being forthcoming about your academic qualifications on your userpage. You obviously have much expertise on this subject and can contribute much to the academic aspect of this article. At the same time, I think ingraining yourself in controversial aspects of this article to be a clear example of Conflict of Interest. I agree with Rachel.Greenberg (welcome to Wikipedia) that this may be eligible to be put into the article. I would definitely consider the National Post to be a Reliable Source and would suggest finding other sources as well. However, please try to recuse yourself from editing until the issue can be discussed civilly on the talk page lest you find yourself in violation of the three revert rule. I agree with Kylu that we should try to handle it here before we move on to Mediation or Arbitration. Let's generate some discussion here instead. Valley2 city ‽ 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * valley2city - please see ticket # 2007112710018004. view the m.o. described in the case file. compare it to rachel.greenberg. be sure to note the changes to the Ancient_Qumran:_A_Virtual_Reality_Tour page that i never edit (to avoid a conflict of interest in my own work). interesting that he chose that page to begin to edit now. note especially the rationale given for the reinsertion of material that was removed as a part of the adjudicated case above. compare it to the last person to attempt to reinsert the material: User:Critical_Reader, who was banished for - you guessed it - sockpuppetry. welcome back to wikipedia. if you'd like further details and evidence showing that this is clearly the same thing all over again, please email me privately. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i'd also ask you to check to see if rachel.greenberg is an nyu ip address (like all the other banished aliases). also check to see time of creation and to see if it is a single purpose account (issues of golb's criticism of the dead sea scrolls exhibitions). let me know what you find. thanx IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

3) The reason I reverted the article on your film to the state where it included Golb's review of your film, was so people could see exactly why you have a conflict of interest as regards my section in this article, where Golb is mentioned. Here you say you have no conflict, but again you are attacking me because I mentioned "issues of golb's criticism of the dead sea scrolls exhibitions" -- those are your words.  This seems like a conflict of interest to me, and I would be grateful if you could please have the courtesy to stop deleting my section. 4) I also found the reason someone gave for deleting the sentence on Golb's review from the article on your film was suspicious, and stated so. If someone else had the same "rationale" as mine -- that Golb's review was obviously not "self-published" -- it seems to me he/she was right. The discussion on that page dealing with your film and Golb's review is so deranged I could barely make heads or tails of it, and frankly I did not have the patience to read it all. So let me know if I'm missing something there.

5) As for your sockpuppetry case from two years ago that you keep attacking me with, I have nothing to do with it, thank you very much again. I've spoken with five or six people here about the exhibit controversy since seeing the exhibit at the Jewish Museum, and no one even mentioned Wikipedia.  But everyone knows about Golb and the controversy -- it's not a mystery.  His book is assigned reading, and it's not my fault if it's at the center of a controversy that thousands of people know about; after all, there are nearly two million Jewish people in New York City.  So if you continue with your war, then neither I nor anyone else at NYU can contribute anything about this controversy.  Is that what you want? Just let me know, so I can get back to my paper which is due on Friday and stop exhausting myself with your attacks.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * give it time rg, give it time. lol. (clever though...)
 * for those of you that like bread, leave it. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * 4) The National Post is a sockpuppet for Golb.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Thank you for your consideration.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * dear rachel.greenberg - please see Wiki:Non_sequitur_(logic) (by the way - non sequiturs are yet another m.o. for 'charles gadda.' read his now public articles. all guilty-by-association non sequiturs). in fact, let's keep an eye on those now public articles carefully ;-)
 * oh, and rachel.greenberg - you again conveniently avoided my question (another 'gadda-esque' technique): will you accept my request for voluntary mediation? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you're harassing me and trying to manipulate people, and I would ask you again to leave me alone, and do whatever you like to convince Wikipedia administrators that you don't have a conflict of interest, despite Golb's extensive criticism of your own film shown at the exhibit. You can "keep an eye" on Now Public articles if you like, I used only reliable sources and wrote my section in good faith. If this is the way it's going to be every time I edit an article, I will cancel my membership. Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * once again, will you, Rachel.Greenberg, please accept my request for voluntary mediation? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

You do indeed control content: you have repeatedly removed a perfectly germane section I added to this article on one pretext or another, despite your conflict of interest.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * and i revert vandalism too. and i correct spelling errors. etc. i also try to keep an eye on socks trying to sneak back in and do the same thing all over again. i don't control the article, i just keep it clean. and i still can't believe there is no mention of the essenes. even though i never refer to the residents of qumran as 'essenes,' a majority of scholars still think that's who wrote them. they at least deserve a mention, no?IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

let's stick to the scrolls, not traveling exhibitions
i have removed, once again, the issues arising from about private exhibitions based on letters and blogs. let's stick to the facts, and stick to the scrolls. this article is about the dss, not the traveling exhibitions. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * and if we still have issues, let's go into mediation. this isn't going to get resolved here. unless, that is, your entire objective is to just pick a fight... IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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


 * you know User talk:Rachel.Greenberg... since you are at nyu and have an interest in the dead sea scrolls, have you talked to professor schiffman? he's a dss expert and he's right there at nyu. you should talk to him and see what he has to say about this wiki article on the scrolls. he might have some good advice for you. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take it up with him yourself, since I know his views a lot better than you do.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. i'll bet you do. he's a good scholar, dr. schiffman is. he has a lot of great insights and original ideas about qumran. although i don't agree with everything he suggests (nor he with me), i respect him as a scholar and am very impressed with the way his theory of zadokite associations with the qumran sect has developed. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

You will predictably have a conflict of interest about this as well, since you are involved in the quarrel over the origins of the scrolls. There is a dossier of press items surrounding the Jewish Museum exhibit, all of which say there is a debate between two main theories. I will insert them and if you keep eliminating them as you have done to my section here I will point out your conflict of interest to Wikipedia administrators.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, i read about the ny exhibition. interesting. somewhat favorable to ng. and in turn, he critiqued the exhibition favorably if i remember. did you get to see the exhibition?
 * oh, and just a word of advice to anyone watching: when sending anonymous emails, it doesn't matter necessarily what you say or what name you sign to it, if you send the email to the exact same mailing list with the same additions and omissions as the last ones, it kinda gives it away. lol. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation as potential next step
Alright, discussion (from both the talk page and from the messages I have been receiving) seems to not be making any positive progress. I agree that mediation should potentially be the next step. However, I think you should both take a look at Mediation to see if you find it an appropriate action before requesting mediation from Requests for mediation. You both (and any other parties involved) need to be in agreement that you want to go to mediation and that all other options have been exhausted. Valley2 city ‽ 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed. i think that those options are exhausted. in fact, i think that just like last time, he will introduce a reason for getting out (opening the idea of 'canceling my membership' above) and never set foot in mediation. i have requested mediation three times, and the question has not even been acknowledged. just like last time, this is all about airing grievances and scorching the earth in a public forum so as many people can watch as possible. as i have said for the past two years (and yes, this has been going on this long as ridiculous as that sounds), all he wants is the fight. he will not answer questions, he only wants the fight and to stir controversy, just like the one he defends. again i ask rachel.greenberg - will you please enter into mediation with me? (i feel like i'm asking him to the prom) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now had the time to look at the mediation pages. This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide_to_filing_a_case, makes it clear that a dispute, to qualify for mediation, must be about content, and not conduct. Thus, my understanding is that IsraelXKV8R wants to have mediation over the question of whether the content of the section I added to this article is germane. So it seems to me that IsraelXKV8R is using this as a ploy to get around the fact that he has an obvious conflict of interest and should not be involved in editing this section at all, let alone eliminating it.

Nonetheless, if the Mediation Committee contacts me with a request, I will accept, as long as it is about the content of the section and as long as I have the opportunity to make it clear to them that IsraelXKV8R is personally involved in the exhibits that are the subject of the controversy reported on in the National Post. Given this problem, I will be surprised if the Mediation Committee does not reject the request.

Moreover, if I see that IsraelXKV8R is subverting the mediation process by making vicious personal attacks on me as he has above (including rehashing a sockpuppet case from two years ago, addressing me as a male, and accusing me of being a sockpuppet for N. Golb), I will immediately withdraw from the process, as the page says I have the right to.

In the meantime, I have reinserted the section which IsraelXKV8R keeps deleting. Since the requested mediation has to be about content, there has to be some content for it to be about.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i'll take that as a yes. they'll be in contact soon. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Initially I would say your case IS about content, namely whether or not the contested sections belong in the article. Though it is important to note the roles each editor plays in formulating this article, and I think the mediators will take that into account, my hope is that the main role will be verifying whether or not the controversial statements belong in the article. That having been said I highly suggest that you both stop accusing each other because that may very well lead you to Arbitration. While the Arbitrators tend to be nice people, their decisions are binding may be punitive. As for the allegation of sockpuppetry, Rachel, you don't have to do this but I think it would be in your benefit to set up your academic e-mail address by going to Special:Preferences and then go to Special:EmailUser/Valley2city and send me a message and it would show me that you have an NYU e-mail address. It couldn't hurt your claim, anyway. Also if you feel comfortable you might want to check out CheckUser, a person who can ascertain who you are or at least WHERE you are. Valley2 city ‽ 04:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uneven presentation of pertinent information
Dear Wikipedia community,

As a scholar, I find the anonymity of this forum suspect. Against that spirit, my name is Ingrid Lilly. I am a PhD student at Emory university in Hebrew Bible. I have studied the scrolls with John J. Collins and Steven Fraade at Yale Divinity School and with Carol Newsom at Emory University. Additionally, I have been involved in the Graduate Enoch conferences initiated by Gabriele Boccaccinni which were held at the University of Michigan (Summer, 2006) with James VanderKam and at Princeton Seminary (Summer, 2008) with James Charlesworth. In short, I've encountered a variety of positions and scholarship on the scrolls with well established names in the field. In addition to these educational experiences, I continue to attend SBL sections on the Dead Sea Scrolls). My own work, while primarily on the Septuagint, has included work on the scrolls.  I deem it impossible not to have some measure of "interest" in how a dictionary entry deals with issues of scholarship in which you have worked.

With that as my introduction, I'd like to make a general comment. While the information presented in this wiki is overall sound, I find it uneven. Sound theories about the role of the Essenes and the community described in 1QS should inform a section on community life at Qumran and the relationship of the texts to that community (Devorah Dimant's consensus contribution about he nature of sectarian vs. wider Jewish literature.)

Further, I'm not sure why there is an entire section devoted to a controvery which has little to nothing to do with the way in which scholarship deals with the Scrolls. (I am referring to the debates on this discussion page about Golb/Cargill...the San Diego exhibit/NYU -it's a bit baffleing, frankly, to an outside scholar who works on the scrolls.) I can understand why it would be appropriate to mention the fact that the Israel museum has been under renovation which has permitted the circulation of the Scrolls in the United States as a special exhibit. However, the circulation of an exhibit of the scrolls is not the type of information that a wiki devoted to the Dead Sea Scrolls needs to cover in any amount of detail.

Sincerely, Ingrid Lilly PhD Candidate, Emory University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.12.28 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you presuppose that this is merely an article on "the way scholarship deals with the Scrolls"? It's an article on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are the most popular archaeological discovery of the 20th century. Hence, a controversy over the manner in which they are being presented in exhibitions is of interest to the public.


 * Also, allow me to point out that the professors you mention (Collins, Newsom, VanderKam, Charlesworth) are themselves involved in the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy; they have all been criticized by Golb in his book and elsewhere (perhaps you are unfamiliar with these sources, since so many defenders of the Qumran-sectarian theory appear to be engaged in an effort to prevent information on this controversy from being known); in some instances they have engaged in published debates with Golb or, from what I understand, have made sneering remarks about him in publications of their own; people's careers appear to have been ruined on account of this ongoing academic problem; this all seems to be quite well known but you appear to be oblivious of the situation ("baffled" is your term).


 * In addition, your own statement concerning "sound theories about the role of the Essenes" makes your own perspective clear -- you do not have a neutral attitude towards the debate over Scroll origins, but have taken sides in it, clearly under the influence of the people you name. So it is not difficult to see why you would find that a controversy over the manner in which the Scrolls are being presented to millions of people has "little to do with the way in which scholarship deals with the Scrolls."  That is your view; it is clearly not the view, for example, of the neutral editors of the Bibbia Blog.  I'm interested in this thing from a neutral point of view -- there's a controversy, it's obviously of enormous interest and should be described in Wikipedia articles on the Scrolls.


 * Wikipedia has thousands of things to deal with, so this is obviously not a priority of theirs; but it's a real problem and you can't avoid it simply by invoking your own scholarly point of view. One of my professors told me I have "stepped into a hornet's nest," should not submit my NYU email address, and that I should stay away from this thing because it could end up ruining my life.  Still "baffled"?

Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * wow! rachel.greenberg, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about every aspect of dr. golb's theories, his books, and his online postings. in fact, your response sounds incredibly similar to that of 'charles gadda' in his | now public blog that explicitly says mentions that collins, vanderkam, and others are involved in a conspiracy directly against dr. golb. i have heard that accusation nowhere outside of postings by 'charles gadda.' coincidence?
 * also, if you are a nyu student, then you should be quite familiar with nyu professor larry schiffman and his insightful theories about the origin of the dead sea scrolls and the qumran sect.
 * and it's a pity that you can't submit your nyu email address as User:Valley2city requested. lol.
 * btw - have you a accepted the mediation request yet? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

More snide remarks from IsraelXKV8R. Perhaps you could refer me to the specific article you're referring to, since I'm not going to read through all of Charles Gadda's articles to find some statement about a conspiracy, which is certainly not my perspective on this controversy.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * in fact, i'm going to work on a section that highlights dr. schiffman's groundbreaking work on the dead sea scrolls. his original work on the scrolls is certainly deserving of a mention. in fact, there used to be an entire section on the scholarship on the dead sea scrolls, highlighting the different approaches to the interpretation of the dead sea scrolls. i can include brief lines on each of the significant contributions by various scholars to the scholarship of the scrolls. let me work on that for a while and i'll work it into the article. shalom. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

good for the goose, good for the gander
i have again removed the section inserted by Rachel.Greenberg attempting to highlight the controversy stirred by norman golb regarding a traveling exhibition of the dead sea scrolls. Rachel.Greenberg is arguing that since the national review printed a response to a letter to the editor from norman golb regarding the dss exhibitions, that it is eligible for use in a section on the dead sea scrolls. if that is the case, i believe the same source, the national review, and other published letters to editors are eligible for use in a section of controversy on the wiki page of norman golb. again, if dr. golb's letters to the editor are appropriate for sections concerning controversy on the dead sea scrolls, they are equally appropriate for sections on his wiki page. let us be consistent with our reasons for eligibility. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Golb has obviously published many books, articles and letters. Since you have a conflict of interest stemming from his attack on your film, you have no right to edit the Wikipedia page on him.  I will reinsert the section on the exhibit controversy.  If someone feels that there are reasons for excluding the public exchange of letters on this topic, we can discuss, but again you have a conflict of interest and your deletion of this section (not only the exchange of letters, but the entire section) violates the conflict of interest rule.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i have no conflict of interest on the dead sea scrolls page, nor on the norman golb page. on the ancient qumran: a virtual reality tour page, yes, and i have never touched it.
 * i like how conveniently you carve out and know your wiki own rules (and how well you know them), since you've been a wiki member for nearly 5 days! basically, your argument is that you, as an anonymous person, can edit anything, because you have no conflicting interest, but that i, since i am not anonymous, cannot touch any article, even those in my field of expertise. what kind of logic is that? if letters to the editor from dr. golb are grounds for sections of controversy on issues related to the dss (the exhibitions), then they are grounds for sections on dr. golb's page.
 * have you accepted mediation yet? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i also find it quite interesting that you have recently made an edit to the ancient qumran: a virtual reality tour page. the change you made was essentially the reinsertion of the material purged by an editor after the adjudication of the sock puppetry case surrounding ticket # 2007112710018004. interesting that you essentially reinserted material originally by User:Critical_Reader. it's almost comical. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your denial that you have a conflict of interest on the Norman Golb page, despite his attack on your film, is quite revealing.

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule against "anonymous users." Your expertise doesn't allow you to systematically delete information referring to a controversy in which you are involved. That would be the case, even if I myself were involved in the controversy, which I am not. Your "Norman Golb sockpuppet" claim (based on what? you have no evidence at all for this, apart from the fact that I'm "anonymous") is an obvious smokescreen to try and distract people from this basic point.

Show me where I have "promoted" Golb in this article and I'll step down immediately. I have merely cited a reliable source that quotes him, as well as the published exchange of letters connected with that source. The article could be wrong, you should take it up with the National Post, not Wikipedia.

Maybe you have a case that the letters shouldn't be cited (on what basis, I don't see). That's different than deleting the whole section over and over again.

As I have stated on the mediation page, I agree only to mediate the following content-related issue:

Whether the information provided in the section about a controversy over Dead Sea Scrolls exhibitions is relevant (germane, pertinent, etc.) to the topic of the article ("The Dead Sea Scrolls"); whether the sources used are reliable; etc.

If we can agree to limit the discussion to the issue as I have specified it, or to define the issue in a manner which we both agree to, then mediation can go forward; otherwise I do not agree. Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * that's ok. i've asked them to reopen the sock puppet case separately. so you can enter mediation on the content, and the sock puppetry issue will be handled separately. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we need to agree on how to define the content-related issue. I've offered a formulation above, but that's not the way you formulated it on the mediation page. If you're willing to agree on my formulation, or if you can get me to agree to one of your liking, I suggest you resubmit an application, limiting yourself to that issue.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * nah. let's let the mediation agreement stand exactly as you've agreed to it.
 * also, since the 'new and improved' section on the controversy about the dss exhibitions all hinges on letters to the editor involving dr. golb in the national review, and all seem to involve citations linking back to objections and pieces authored by dr. golb, i feel it is appropriate that the entire section be cut-and-pasted onto dr. golb's page. if it meets the credibility requirements as-is for the wiki dead sea scrolls page, then it meets the requirements as-is for the norman golb page. if the controversy stems from and revolves around his work and his objections (as cited in your re-inserted section) then it should be ok for his page. in fact, i won't object to you yourself cutting-and-pasting the section to dr. golb's dr. golb's page. you don't need my permission obviously, but i won't object to you or anyone else putting it on his page. :) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The information belongs in the article on the museum or the people involved, not here. It is undue weight to a minor contra. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Others (including the National Post and the Los Angeles Times) do not necessarily share your opinion that this controversy is "minor." Millions of people have seen this exhibit as it travels around the world, so it certainly seems like something that is of interest. Please have the courtesy and respect to discuss the matter before deleting the section. Wasn't this issue going to be mediated?


 * The issue is already covered in the existing article as to whether it was the product of a single Essene scriptorium or was a cache from multiple sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

IsraelXKV8R: the mediation agreement still doesn't seem to have been accepted, probably because of the problem defining the issue. I believe you need to submit the issue again as we agree on it if you want it mediated. Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * no, it's cool. you agreed and i accepted as is. see you there
 * oh, and glad to see you found the mike boehm article again. that took you longer than usual. i know that had to crimp your style when the la times pulled that article from their site. kinda like when the national review pulled the original adam mcdowell article with my comments. don't worry though, articles come and articles disappear. it keeps you on your toes... ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I found the Mike Boehm article when I did a google search for "debate scrolls san diego museum" (it's the fourth item on the page that comes up) and it's on the Los Angeles Times site at http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/26/entertainment/et-scrolls26. I don't know anything about any original National Post article, but if you were intervening there as well, this simply confirms your conflict of interest.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * not intervening, just keeping an eye on you like i have been for the past two years. i'm just not keeping silent anymore. think of the tv show lost; you run around thinking you're fooling people, but the island is always watching you. and now, it's getting close to the time, the time to reveal the man behind the curtain... ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

improving the article
i'm going to work on a section that highlights all of the significant scholarship on the dead sea scrolls. original work on the scrolls is certainly deserving of a mention. in fact, there used to be an entire section on the scholarship on the dead sea scrolls, highlighting the different approaches to the interpretation of the dead sea scrolls. i can include brief lines on each of the significant contributions by various scholars to the scholarship of the scrolls. let me work on that for a while and i'll work it into the article. shalom. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i resurrected and cleaned up a section on the 'origin of the scrolls' that used to be a part of the article, but for some reason was deleted. i discussed all of the present theories about the origins of the scrolls (whether i agree with them or not.) i even left out my own name/theory just to avoid coi claims. please note: the descriptions about the origins are brief and of appropriate length relative to the length of the article. i did not list all of the pros and cons of each of the arguments, and i did not list every complaint and grievance that every side of the debate has against the other. i did not cite every book, article, blog, and .pdf ever written or slapped up on a website by every author on the earth. all of the key players are mentioned in a brief, respectful manner and cited. this is befitting a short section on the origin of the scroll. please look for errors, misspellings, mistakes, etc. and contribute as needed. let me say in advance that attempts to over-develop certain parts of this section and to promote certain personal grievances will be reverted and reported. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll also try to write some brief summaries of the more well-known dss for the page. seems strange that the dss page doesn't mention some of the more important scrolls. as time permits, i'll try to fill in separate pages for the individual scrolls for those that don't exits. i could use some help with this. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i've added a section on many of the more well-known scrolls, but stopped short of brief descriptions. i wikilinked the ones i could. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

here are some articles that are missing on wiki that need editing/contributions. most of these simply need new entries.
 * Second Temple Judaism (surprisingly, there is no article on this. there is an article on the second temple.
 * The Genesis Apocryphon

IsraelXKV8R (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

also, the 'discovery' section needs to be cleaned up and made proportionate to the article. it's far too much detail with respect to the length of the entire article. probably better to summarize it and cite the book from which it was taken. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

why he does what he does
some call it a google bomb. others call it a cyber war. but there is a reason 'charles gadda' aka 'critical reader' aka 'rachel greenberg' is doing what he is doing. this article, which shows how misinformation in wikipedia can actually become false fact, explains why the aliases are so bent on manufacturing this whole norman golb/dead sea scroll exhibition controversy into the dead sea scrolls wikipedia article. some newspaper might come here for background information. it's actually quite a clever racket. first, attempt to insert info about the conspiracy/controversy into the wiki page. then send an email from a fictitious name (he prefers gmail) touting the conspiracy/controversy. (european writers and intellectual historians work well given his education.) make sure you mail the mass anonymous emails to the news outlets and museums months before the exhibition gets there. hopefully you can dupe some aspiring journalist to seize on the 'conspiracy' aspect of the story and print something like mike boehm or poor adam mcdowell did. lol. i remember when poor brian howe at indyweek.com actually got duped into quoting one of the aliases. poor brian howe quoted 'robert dworkin', who in turn duped vox populi into printing one of his dead sea scrolls/golb conspiracy articles on their site (go ahead, click on vox populi and click on 'read the full article' and see what happens. they pulled it). indy.com was so embarrassed, they amended the article by putting a line through the part of the article that quoted 'robert dworkin.' the national review actually pulled the original article (that rachel greenberg keeps citing above) but it had already gotten picked up elsewhere. but that's how this works. he needs a home base like | now public where he can write anonymously, but still get picked up by google news alerts. now public has yet to shut his account down, even though every single article deals with the dead sea scrolls controversy and norman golb (including the sarah palin and bernie madoff articles lol). (now public did shut one of his other accounts, peter kaufman, down.) and so on and so on. when the next dead sea scroll announcement is made, start all over again. blog on now public, send letters to media outlets pointing to now public, and try to get a national press story. in the mean time, write anonymous letters to scholars involved with the exhibitions and try to get them to respond. then ask them for a response to the 'controversy.' when they finally tell you to bugger off, publish the entire ordeal on an anonymous wordpress blog. don't believe me? read the word press blog about unsuspecting bart ehrman. 'jerome cooper' stars as the anonymous emailer, and by the time bart ehrman caught on (or was made aware of the scam), the entire exchange is published on yet another wordpress blog. when the scrolls were in charlotte, the aliases wrote letters and attacked. when the scrolls were in kansas city, they got a pass, because they invited dr. golb to be a 'distinguished lecturer'. but when the scrolls came to seattle, and they did not invite dr. golb to speak, the aliases wrote their letters and attacked. when the scrolls were in san diego, and dr. golb was not invited to speak, the aliases came after those of us who study the scrolls in so cal. in raleigh, it was jodi magness and bart ehrman's turn. in new york, it was larry schiffman. and now he's gearing up for toronto again.

so that's why this is important. do i like checking wiki every second and tracking this guy, no. but i can help stop it, or at least temper it. and make no mistake, the aliases will argue and complain and appeal and cry conflict of interest. if he follows suit, next comes claims of antisemitism and conspiracy. but then again, that's all he can do. he doesn't want truth, he only wants the fight. and wikipedia must see this, and when possible, stop it. shalom IsraelXKV8R (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, again; will someone please take a decision on this matter?
First of all, look at IsraelXKV8R's complicated analysis, in his long paragraph above, of a deranged plot (which, contrary to his accusation, I have nothing to do with). His real point here is obviously to try and tear down the entirely reliable sources I've used, by somehow connecting them with this plot. "Aspiring" journalists were somehow "duped" into believing there's a controversy, when there isn't. Well, I don't agree with these accusations that the national press is unprofessional. I think journalists know what they're doing, and they check their sources carefully. Their articles are still on the websites of the newspapers in question, at the links I've provided.

At any rate, IsraelXKV8R's analysis simply shows how deep his conflict of interest on this matter is. Even a brief look at the Charles Gadda blog he mentions shows that his film, along with an exhibition in which it has been shown, was criticized in that blog as well. His entire effort here is clearly aimed at preventing readers of the Wikipedia article on the Dead Sea Scrolls from finding out about the criticism of the Dead Sea Scroll exhibitions and of his film which has been shown in at least one of them.

On top of it, it looks like IsraelXKV8R is involved not only in the Dead Sea Scroll exhibits, but in the current controversy over the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls in general. Yet who has been editing this article the most? Take a look at the history section and the answer is clear. I don't dispute his right to participate in the editing process, but for him to systematically delete my section which refers to reliable sources critical of the exhibit he worked on, obviously crosses the line.

I'm going to insert a new, expanded version of the exhibition controversy section into the article, including the Indy Week article mentioned by IsraelXKV8R (written by "poor" Brian Howe, as he calls this journalist), which I didn't know about and which also contains pertinent information. This too appears to be a reliable source, although it is not a major newspaper like the National Post or the Los Angeles Times.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i ask those of you watching this exchange to please look back at the similar exchanges between critical reader and others on the qumran and san diego natural history museum pages. check also the comments made by critical reader and his sock puppets on the ancient qumran and william schniedewind pages (much of which has been refactored, but archived). does any of this look familiar? especially coming an anonymous user? coming from a nyu ip address? from a single purpose account? established only a week ago? promoting only a controversy involving norman golb? and look at the first messages left by 'rachel greenberg' earlier on this talk page. look the same? or has the innocent, unsuspecting young female nyu student persona been shed in exchange for a fierce, persistent, defender of norman golb with vast knowledge of apparently every article in cyberspace that mentions him?? it is quite obvious what is going on here, and yes, i've filled out all the proper forms. in the mean time, i appreciate those of you keeping an eye on this page and helping out. i hate doing all this too, but at least the dss article will be the better for it, as will wikipedia's credibility. thanx IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know this Critical Reader and I'm not anyone's sockpuppet. I have a right to contribute a perfectly germane section on the basis of entirely reliable sources from major newspapers, as I have done. You have a huge conflict of interest and I hope you will be prevented from imposing yourself on me and controlling this article the way you've been doing.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm not imposing myself on any article. i didn't even mention myself in this article. i've added sections and improved this article by adding resources in the form of formatting, wikilinks, bibliography, references, and improved descriptions on the catalog of scrolls, their makeup, and various theories of their origin. i mentioned everyone (including dr. golb positively) and tried very hard to include everyone (including those scholars and theories that i do not accept academically). i also rooted every reference in a published book or peer-review article. i've tried to use my interest and training in the dss to improve the article in a responsible, professional, equitable, and fair manner, and did so with a keen eye towards the relative length of the article (no undue wright to one section over another). your beef with me is that i continue to remove a section dealing with a traveling dss exhibit (not the scrolls themselves) from a highly slanted pov (pro-golb), from a sock puppet. the reason that others are beginning to remove this section as well is they too see that this is nothing more than an attempt to stir controversy prior to the toronto dss exhibition. let me guess: he didn't get an invitation to be a distinguished lecturer, did he? it is obvious what you are doing, and others see it too. the section you persistently attempt to add (and expand) does not belong here, is obviously highly biased, and is grossly disproportionate to the relative length of the article. it's gotta go. as for your plea for someone to 'please take a decision on this matter'... just give it time rg, give it time. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your personal view (obviously influenced by the nature of your involvement in the controversy) as to what the controversy is about is irrelevant to the explanations given in the national press articles I've been reading, which are reliable sources and which are the only material I've used in this section. You constantly refer to blogs connected with this deranged plot you're obsessed with, I refer to reliable sources only. If you think this controversy is overblown, express your opinion in a published article of your own or in a letter to one of the newspapers. Then it can be included in the section, I can even add it for you so there is no conflict of interest. I haven't taken sides in this controversy at all, but I'm not going to let you get away with denying there's a controversy, when you yourself are involved in it.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IsraelXKV8R's other edits contradict Jewish Museum exhibit
I would also like to point out that IsraelXKV8R, in the material he has been adding to this article, has obviously attempted to obscure the nature of the debate over the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Jewish Museum's material states: Scholars have two basic theories about who used the scrolls. The first posits that the scrolls all belonged to a single religious sect [living] at the settlement of Qumran. Most scholars identify this group as the Essenes ... although other groups such as the Sadducees and even proto-Christians have been proposed.

The second theory proposes that the scrolls were a random collection of texts reflecting the beliefs of many Jewish groups of the period. They represented either a single priestly repository or public library or the sacred texts of various Jewish communities from Jerusalem and elsewhere in the land of Israel. During the Jewish revolt against Rome beginning in 68 CE, refugees from further north hid their precious texts in the Dead Sea caves. This hypothesis holds that there is no connection between the scrolls and the settlement at Qumran, and that the site was a fortress, a villa, a farm, an industrial site, or a commercial center. See http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/site/pages/press.php?id=140

By enumerating a bunch of different theories and treating the Essene theory as the dominant one, IsraelXKV8R is falsifying this basic picture of two opposing theories. He is drowning out the second basic theory in a diversity of views. He is doing this intentionally, because of his own involvement in the ongoing controversy and because of his desire to conceal this controversy. The Jewish Museum in New York, however, did not conceal it.

I would like to know if I have the right to edit IsraelXKV8R's material, or if he is given privileged status because he is a scholar involved in the controversy.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * and i listed both of those theories, and others, in the 'origin of the scrolls' section. why is the ny exhibit the only one to say that? maybe i'm not dating the right people... ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * and of course you can edit my contributions. i'm but a simple contributor on wiki and not even an editor or admin. just keep in mind that the nature of the changes you make will be a reflection upon your point of view. so edit away. the beautiful thing about wiki is we can see who changed what and from where. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

oops. now you are getting sloppy. anyone need more evidence?
if you needed any further evidence that rachel.greenberg is a sock puppet of critical reader, who in turn is a sock puppet for 'charles gadda' and his pro-golb/scorched earth/manufacture and stir controversy/smear all scholars that disagree with golb campaign, look no further. just above, rachel.greenberg said he was quoting an article from the jewish museum. just above, rachel.greenberg quotes the article as such (i cut-and-pasted it as he wrote it):

Scholars have two basic theories about who used the scrolls. The first posits that the scrolls all belonged to a single religious sect [living] at the settlement of Qumran. Most scholars identify this group as the Essenes ... although other groups such as the Sadducees and even proto-Christians have been proposed.

when we actually follow the link and go to the jewish museum page that rachel.greenberg offers above, we find that very paragraph. it reads as follows (again, i cut-and-pasted it):

Scholars have two basic theories about who used the scrolls. The first posits that the scrolls all belonged to a single religious sect that probably lived at the settlement of Qumran. Most scholars identify this group as the Essenes described in the writings of ancient historians, although other groups such as the Sadducees and even proto-Christians have been proposed.

when we compare the two quotes, we notice three distinct differences.


 * first, the text from the jewish museum article does not put any of the text in bold, but rachel.greenberg's blockquote does have the words 'two basic theories' in bold.


 * second, in rachel.greenberg's quote, the word 'living' is in brackets ( [living] ). yet, in the jewish museum page, we see find the words 'that probably lived'. thus, we see that rachel.greenberg inserted the bracketed word 'living' in place of the words 'that probably lived', which were found in the original jewish museum page.


 * third, in rachel.greenberg's blockquote, a portion of the text is eliminated, and an ellipsis is put in it's place between the words 'essenes' and 'although'. however, the actual quote from the jewish museum page has the words, 'described in the writings of ancient historians' included in the text, which rachel.greenberg replaced with an ellipsis.

therefore, rachel.greenberg put the words 'two basic theories' in bold, replaced the words 'that probably lived' with the bracked word 'living', and replaced the words 'described in the writings of ancient historians' with an ellipsis. this is quite interesting, given the fact that i've seen this exact same edit before. but it is not on the jewish museum page, it's on 'charles gadda's' article on the new york exhibit. there you will notice the exact same edits: the same words are put in bold, the same word 'living' replaces the words 'that probably lived,' and the same phrase 'described in the writings of ancient historians' is replaced by an ellipsis. 'charles gadda's' article reads as follows (again, i have cut-and-pasted it):

Scholars have two basic theories about who used the scrolls. The first posits that the scrolls all belonged to a single religious sect [living] at the settlement of Qumran. Most scholars identify this group as the Essenes ... although other groups such as the Sadducees and even proto-Christians have been proposed.

thus, this is pretty basic literary-critical evidence that rachel.greenberg is not just some random nyu student with an amateur interest in the dead sea scrolls, but is being directly informed by the work of 'charles gadda', who has already been confirmed as the puppet master behind confirmed sock puppet critical reader.

sorry rg, but now you're just getting sloppy. you'd think that you would have learned a little literary criticism along the way. ;-) it's time to end this charade. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more madness from IsraelXKV8R. I copied the Jewish Museum quotation from one of the articles that he himself referred us to earlier; that's how I found it. I did not bother comparing the Jewish Museum's exact words with the ones quoted by IsraelXKV8R's adversary. But the difference is minor and the point still stands: the Jewish Museum speaks of two basic theories, and when it says "most scholars" it is referring to most of the scholars who support the first theory, not to "most scholars" in general. Therefore I will edit the article accordingly and reinsert the section on the controversy.128.122.89.191 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you. sorry this is such a hassle.
rachel greenberg has been confirmed as a sock puppet. thank you for your patience and sorry this is such a hassle every time a new exhibition opens. i've removed the section inserted by the confirmed sock puppet. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "Avraham Avi" who was fooled by IsraelXKV8R into thinking I'm a sockpuppet? He should be ashamed of himself for taking the side of this interested party and allowing him to get away with this outrageous hijacking of your Dead Sea Scrolls page, misinforming the public and hiding valuable information which concerns a controversy in which he himself is involved.128.122.89.191 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meatpuppetry is considered sockpuppetry. -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

thanx shii
thanx shii for the reference. this section needs work. appreciate the work. no trout for you ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Qumran ink analysis shows use of Dead Sea water, indicating local writing
A new article reports measurements of the ratio of chlorine and bromine in ink from a Qumran Cave One manuscript and concludes that the ink was prepared with water from or near the Dead Sea; the Qumran scroll was inscribed near the Dead Sea.

Ira Rabin, Oliver Hahn, Timo Wolff, Admir Masic and Gisela Weinberg, "On the Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayot a)," Dead Sea Discoveries 16.1 (2009) 97-106.

Abstract (p. 97): "In this study we demonstrate the possibility to identify the production area of the scrolls, coupling non-destructive quantitative analysis of trace elements to spectroscopic investigation of the inks. This approach, that allowed us to determine the Dead Sea area as origin of 1QHodayot a, is of general validity."

Conclusion (p. 102) "Using the fingerprint composition of the water from the Dead Sea region we could directly link the fragment, and consequently, the production of 1QHodayot a to the Qumran area. Furthermore, our study of organic components present in the carbon ink of this scroll indicates that gall nuts extracts were used in the ink preparation as early as 1st century C.E."

152.3.237.34 (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson/Essenes_&_Others.pdf "Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts"

promoted ilani-ha'aretz article to reference
someone in israel added the ofri ilani-ha'aretz article to the external links. i also promoted it to a reference in the body of the text.IsraelXKV8R (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC) It is aparrent that the Scrolls have as much direct bearing on all modern religions that claim to worship YHWH, as well as the existing factions that arose from the one religion at the time of their being written. However, in our quest to discover the one ' true ' path, it is my opinion that we are overlooking one important fact. The path to YHWH starts with He Himself. It cannot be found in a book, and it cannot be taught to us by our fellow creations. Christians, Jews, And Muslims all overlook this. Our ways teach us that we are cut off from seeing the path that is what some call righteousness, hearing the call to this path, and leave us to believe that those who came before us paved this path for us to follow so there is no need for us to made to see, or to hear the calling. One truth about the history of any peoples is that the story can be compared to the span of a person's life. Birth ( early history), childhood ( the foundations and establishment of what defines those whom are discussed), and so forth. All civilizations rise and fall at given times. The writings contained in the Scriptures clearly depict the rise and fall of those descended from our anscestor, Israel. Also, they tell of the rise of all three religions that currently exist that claim to serve the one, true Creator of all. Another truth that the Scriptures tell of is the fall of these religions, and that out of thier ashes the one true path will emerge at the time that it is apponted for it to be so. The one true path is not hidden, and it is not obscured- it is merely overlooked. To discover this path, we must turn to YHWH directly for that which we are in need of. There is no other path that can lead to this one truth. We know how to humble ourselves, and it does not have to be done in the manner that the ones who came before us have taught us to do so. A person can approach YHWH directly, we simply chose not to do so based on past teachings, and our own personal fears and biases. In my opinion, there is no need for large amounts of data to prove this- we have walked this path to find the one that is true, and we have all failed. Why do we continue to do that which we know is not the correct way, when we both know and understand through trial and error do we learn, and based on this truth, and the shape our world is in, are we proven to be wrong in our ways- all of us, not some, but all of us err. As surely as time will continue to flow as if it were an everflowing stream that never will dry up, the rest of what is written of that has not yet come to pass will be brought forth at the time appointed for it to be so. YHWHs' will should never be assumed, discounted, and relpaced with our own counsel. Those who live to see this fact proven true will attest to this. Lochem Katur ben Samuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.182.11 (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

i'll let someone else put it back
ce/bce is standard scientific nomenclature. i'll let someone else put it back IsraelXKV8R (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * thanx. peace. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2009 (Uvc)

UNESCO Protocols and conventions
People are censuring the page, removing information indicating that the scrolls were taken from occupied territory and from the Rockefeller Museum (officially known as the Palestine Archaeological Museum) in East Jerusalem. After the Six Day War, Israel took over the museum, and the Scrolls were moved to the Shrine of the Book, in West Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority objects to the export of the Dead Sea Scrolls because of how and from where they were obtained. People should not be removing facts simply because they wish that information to be left out. Where they came from is relevant and there should even be a section regarding the UNESCO Protocols and Conventions relating to the dead sea scrolls and Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.47.205 (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * this paragraph is better written than the last, but still should be cited. i am still not a fan of making political or ideological arguments in articles about scientific/archaeological objects, but the controversy is relevant to the greater subject of the scrolls. i won't object to the paragraph, but please cite it. and if it becomes a distraction to the article, or a battlefield for ideological/political/religious edit wars, i'll join in calling for its removal. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and please sign your posts. -bc IsraelXKV8R (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

the fagan quote
actually, the fagan quote says 'ad' (methinks). however, the rest of the article should reamain bce/ce. XKV8R (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem
The articel uses both AD and CE. Someone should choice one or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord of Antria (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the only use of 'ad' is in a quote. the text of the article is consistent with bce/ce. XKV8R (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"In Israel"
There appears to be a budding edit war on whether the scrolls were discovered "In Israel", and thus whether the tag applies. While it appears clear the site was not part of Israel at the time of discovery, (1) both Israel and Palestine lay claim to the area, (2) Israel manages it through its national park system, and (3) parallel articles on WP with appropriate citations appear to consider it sufficient to represent both claims on the site, including at Qumran Caves. Deleting the Israel tag, and thus implying the area only belongs to Palestine, appears neither factual nor to represent consensus on WP. Please discuss here rather than edit warring so the community can decide. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See also Archive 3, in which the same topic was discussed in detail and resulted in the current consensus that is now being edited, for better or worse. My quick review of previous discussions seems to indicate the consensus that WP is not in a position to dictate which claim is valid and so should represent both. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can only see you trying to edit against consensus. Israel might like to act as if the site is in Israel, but it has never made a formal claim of sovereignty. So "both Israel and Palestine lay claim to the area" is simply not true. And even if it becomes true in the future, we favor the international viewpoint on matters of disputed territory. If you are correct that other articles have the same error, then those other articles need fixing. Zerotalk 01:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why an edit made on April 2, 2021, and only deleted a couple days ago without discussion, is not the consensus? Or why you do not think WP:BRD should apply here? Isn't it longstanding WP policy that an edit that has survived for over two years without discussion is the consensus, and if edits to it are objected to, those edits need to be discussed before being repeatedly applied? Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only relevant question is if this article should cover what was found at the Cave of Horror in 2021. If not, no Israel cat. If yes, yes Israel cat. Imo obviously. There is currently one sentence about it here, but Im not sure it should or should not be covered further.  nableezy  - 01:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My opinion: either both Palestine and Israel need to remain as categories, or both need to be removed with only West Bank remaining. Anything else is WP:POV, given that Israel occupied the area at a time no state formally claimed it, administers it via the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, has named it an Israeli National Heritage site, has not ratified Palestine's sole claim to the area, and has an official policy that there are competing claims to the area (see embassies.gov.il for example). None of us have the right to accept Palestine's claim and reject Israel's, or vice versa. (Yes, I would also oppose removal of the Palestine category.) Do you care to comment on the reasons for adding this category or the discussion which led to it? Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am not trying to push a POV here. I truly don't understand how we can judge Palestine's claim to be valid but not Israel's on this area, without falling afoul of WP:POV, nor how an edit that lasted for more than two years is not considered the consensus. Per WP:BRD I have added topics to the Talk pages of both the Palestine and Israel Wikiproject pages to invite additional discussion. If new consensus is established here then I'm happy to abide by it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to a RL event I was just notified of, I am unable to participate for some time in further discussion. If editors in opposition to this deletion don't speak up then it's safe to say a new consensus is established. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason to include "in Palestine" is because Qumrun is "in Palestine". It is not in Israel. The only question is does this article cover the original scrolls found in the West Bank or does it also include the ones found in 2021 in Israel. If no to that question the in Israel categories do not belong.  nableezy  - 04:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "discoveries in Israel" category does not belong here, but the scrolls are still part of the collection of the Israel Museum. Do not remove that category. Dimadick (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, collections of the Israel museum isnt being removed here. Just whether or not discovered in Israel is appropriate. Honestly, unless theres more material about the Cave of Horrors remnants added I dont think it should be. This is almost entirely about something discovered outside of Israel, that not even Israel claims is in Israel, and it would be bizarre for Wikipedia to be more expansionist than the government of Israel itself.  nableezy  - 05:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy has it right: a few scroll fragments have been found in Israel and if they get more than a passing mention in the article it will be appropriate to have the Israel category. But this is not justifiable on the basis of Qumran scrolls alone. Zerotalk 06:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like I’m the only dissenting vote given that the editors who originally chose to add it have not responded, nor has anyone from either Wikiproject. Very well. Thanks for being willing to take this to Talk - the deletion stands. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does this page use "ce" instead of AD
Title. Someone should fix it but I know if I do, it will get reverted and I'll be banned for vandalism or something. Aceplante (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Aceplante AD stans for Anno Domini, after the birth of the Christian Jesus.  This article is about the Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls. It is usual to use CE, (=Common Era) when the article is about a Jewish, Muslim or any other non-Christian subject, Huldra (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Never mind about "it is usual" (according to whom?), what does WP:MOS say? 182.239.145.186 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:MOS says it in the very first section. OK? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Huldra's comments are very misleading and wrong. The policy governing this is WP:ERA, which says nothing at all about "any other non-Christian subject", and most articles on eg pre-Christian ancient Rome use BC, as do many other articles of all sorts. But those on Jewish, Muslim and perhaps East Asian & Pre-Columbian subjects do tend to use BCE. Like WP:ENGVAR it is a matter where the first choice must be modified by talk consensus. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2023
According to my research, I found that the dates of discovery were 1947-1956. Usernamewikicode (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Could you please provide the sources you used? Tollens (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)