Talk:Oded Golan

Neutral tone
This page's point of view appears to be seriously compromised. For example, it says that "the trial concluded with Golan's acquittal", which is true only in a misleadingly narrow sense. Golan was in fact found guilty of dealing in stolen antiquities (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/breaking-news-golan-and-deutsch-acquitted-of-all-forgery-charges/), which the article mentions only obliquely as "minor" and "related to the trial". A conviction for dealing in stolen antiquities is notable, but this article appears to actively minimize it.

Another example is that the article states that the trial involved "126 witnesses including over 50 international experts, who testified as to the inscriptions' authenticity." That is severely misleading, because many of the experts testified against the inscriptions' authenticity.

A third example is that the article says: Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated, "there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt." This is uncited but appears to be lifted from an article (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/breaking-news-golan-and-deutsch-acquitted-of-all-forgery-charges/) that does not attribute those words directly to the judge (with quotation marks), only as a paraphrase. (It's possible that the judge did say those words, but that would have to be cited!)

It's instructive to compare this page with the one on James Ossuary. That page gives much more weight not only to general scholarly opinion, but specifically to the range of evidence and remarks at the trial, such as the judge (misquoted above) saying that the forgery acquital "does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago". That's just one example of a place where some balance could be brought to this page's slanted picture.

In general, this page appears to be advocating for Golan, instead of presenting the generally notable facts of his life in a neutral and non-libelous way. It should be reworked to include a more balanced overview of the public record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.196.133.195 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, Im presently reading the Nina Burleigh book, and it gives a complete different view than this article does at the present. The opinion among experts at the moment seems to be that Golan (and accomplices) did indeed commit these forgeries, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
Has He been indicted yet? Its already 2005.


 * This needs an update, it's August 7, 2007, so what happened to this guy?

As far as I know, he's totally guilty: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/solomon_prog_summary.shtml When the police took Oded Golan into custody and searched his apartment they discovered a workshop with a range of tools, materials, and half finished 'antiquities'. This was evidence for an operation of a scale far greater than they had suspected.

Investigators have established that collectors around the world have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for artefacts that came through Oded Golan's associates. Dozens of these items have now been examined by Dr Goren, and all have been revealed to be forgeries. Police now suspect that artefacts made by the same team of forgers have found their way into leading museums around the world. Bar fly high (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Trial update
According to Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, the trial was still ongoing as of the date of the referenced article (April 14, 2008)  Afvet (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest news
5 October 2010

The trial has now ended, after almost six years. The verdict "could take several months". Moon Oracle (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oded Golan. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_Krumbeinreport.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020034908/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974483.html to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974483.html

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) 23:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)