Talk:San Diego Natural History Museum

Including museum criticism
Hi SueHay,

I believe the article is more neutral with the heading as I re-wrote it. I can understand why one might think the formula is not neutral, particularly if one sympathizes with the museum. But if one is simply a neutral, critical-minded individual looking on the entire affair from the outside, the formula is perfectly objective: it indicates the earliest and the latest points in the trajectory of the museum's history. It does not say that the allegations of misconduct cannot be refuted, it merely indicates that they have been made.

If you are a Wikipedia employee, obviously I will respect your decision, but please consider the following:

In response to your own statement that the article reads like an advertisement, together with the request to "help rewrite [it] from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy," I inserted the words "from founding to allegations of misconduct," because otherwise the article does indeed read like an advertisement for the museum, albeit with an appended section on the historian's accusations of misconduct.

This issue goes to the heart of public accountability for institutions in a free and liberal society. The museum could, for example, respond to the allegations, and its response could be incorporated somehow into the article: e.g.: "in a published response, the Museum's president stated...," etc. But the museum should not be allowed to simply ignore the allegations and use the form of the article (or advertisement) to physically, i.e. textually, represent the isolation of its prestige from the allegations, thereby suggesting that the allegations are merely a minor detail and not what really matters. A concerned citizen might feel that the allegations (which appear to be extremely important) are in fact the essential thing about this museum, the very reason there should be an article about it in an on-line free encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critical Reader (talk • contribs).


 * Hi, Critical Reader! Please remember to sign your comments with four tildas -- it makes the conversation much easier to follow. :)
 * About the article, please consider that most public institutions, over the course of their history, have received both public acclaim and public criticism for their actions. The heading "History: from founding to allegations of misconduct" suggests that Golb's criticism of a current exhibit at the museum is a novel situation. That's very unlikely. Golb's criticism, if mentioned here, should be very brief. Wikipedia is not a battleground. This article is primarily about the museum itself, it's history and what it offers. I tagged the building section as reading like an advertisement because of such verbage as "a classically-styled reading room reminiscent of the great libraries of the world. Access to collections and archives through computer interface is one feature of this well-appointed room." Wikipedia editors are volunteers trying to support this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines and Manual of Style. In my opinion, including Golb's criticism of a current exhibit in this article violates WP:NPOV, but there's no point in you and me getting into an edit war about this. Hope this is helpful. --SueHay 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Hopefully you will not continue to remove my contributions to this article, otherwise we will indeed eventually find ourselves in an "edit war." I appreciate the other changes you made, but unfortunately the article still reads in large part like an advertisement: the narrative proceeds through a series of remarks such as the following: "The Board defined its commitment 'to educate and help people know and love nature' and began a variety of educational programs, many of them using specimens from museum collections in city and county schools." The whole intent is obviously to laud the accomplishments of this museum, and completely pass over in silence the controversy surrounding what is obviously the most important exhibit--funded by over $6,000,000 in grants--ever held there. I will leave the editing of those portions to you; in the shorter form I've proposed, I hope you will leave mine alone or make only minimal changes to it that we can agree on. As you said, there is no point in us getting into a quarrel over this matter. But if the Museum wants to have a war, I will have no choice but to respond to their edits in kind.Critical Reader 03:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rejected changes to the museum controversy portion of the article because they were purely polemical in intent, in part defamatory, and irrelevant to the facts of the controversy which concerns questions that have been raised regarding the ethical and educational role of the San Diego Natural History Museum, and not the identities of internet bloggers or the current state of Dead Sea Scrolls research. In the interest of neutrality, however, I have added a reference to a statement (apparently by the anonymous individual whose changes I have rejected) defending the exhibit. Further references to statements defending the exhibit, if any are available, should be added.Critical Reader 06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments. I agree to shorten the article, since we must reach a compromise. However, your reasons for wishing to delete the reference to the LA Times article and curatorial statements quoted in it are not convincing. Before the exhibit opened to the public, the Museum gave journalists a guided tour, and the descriptions in the Times article clearly demonstrate that the article's author had seen the exhibit prior to writing it. I have re-written accordingly, in as neutral a tone as possible. I will check your further changes later on to see if we can reach an agreement.Critical Reader 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please sign your comments with the four tildes, so people can see where your comments end. Also, please refrain from making offensive remarks, I am simply trying to work with you to make the treatment of this ongoing controversy as objective as possible. Given the defamatory tirade you inserted in the wikipedia article about Norman Golb (you are now blocked from making further contributions there), as well as your remarks above, we both know why YOU are doing this--you apparently bear some kind of a grudge against Golb and others who agree with him, and wish to prevent their objections to the exhibit from becoming public knowledge. As for your specific comments: (1) Lengthy descriptions of the exhibit and the "virtual reality" film, both on the museum's website and by various journalists who have seen the exhibit and interviewed the curator, are readily available, and they all make it perfectly clear that the exhibit, while acknowledging that other views exist, nonetheless follows the Qumran-Essene theory of scroll origins. This is particularly the case with the "virtual reality" film. Your claim that Golb's statements about the exhibit are inaccurate, is actually a way of defending the substance of the exhibit, rather than an argument for denying the veracity of any statements made in the article we are editing. The controversy exists, whether or not you feel that it is justified. (2) One must distinguish between two types of claims that have been made: ones based on the actual contents of the exhibit, and ones based on the exclusion of proponents of the Jerusalem theory, and indeed of any opponents of the Qumran-sectarian theory, from the lecture series accompanying the exhibit. The Los Angeles Times article quotes not only Golb, but also Robert Eisenman as criticizing this exclusionary stacking of the lecture series; the ethics and religion editor of the Union-Tribune, Sandi Dolbee, also quotes Golb to that effect in her article on the topic; and one certainly doesn't need to visit the exhibit itself to make up one's mind about the strength of this objection. Since you insist on reverting to the longer version, I would suggest making appropriate changes to clarify this matter. Please respond in a civil manner, indicating on what factual statements you agree or disagree. I have no objection whatsoever to including the entire LA Times quote of the curator, but one should also add the quote from Eisenman, since he, like Golb, is a known scholar.Critical Reader 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

P.s. to be specific: paragraphs (1), (3) and (5) of the "Exhibit Controversy" section of the article as it now stands (in its tagged, non-editable form) are obviously based on reliable sources under wikipedia's reliability criteria. Paragraph (2) provides irrelevant information (why is it important to inform readers that the Union-Tribune is San Diego's "biggest newspaper"?) and reads like an advertisement for the exhibit. The remaining paragraphs may or may not meet wikipedia's standard of reliability, and need to be discussed. For example, is a statement of opinion on a moral issue made by the editor of the San Diego Jewish World website "reliable"? Is a statement of opinion made in a letter by someone who is apparently not a scholar, published by the Jewish Observer of Los Angeles, "reliable"? Are statements of opinion made by anonymous internet bloggers "reliable"? Since we are dealing with an issue of moral opinion, the question seems tricky. I am happy to let those paragraphs drop, as long as we retain (1), (3) and (5), and I believe they would appropriately be amplified by the LA Times quote of Robert Eisenman who, as stated above, is a known scholar. What would still be missing would be statements by known scholars defending the exhibit against the charge of bias and exclusion, but I don't know of any such statements apart from the curator's "you don't want to confuse people" response quoted by the LA Times, so there's nothing I can do about it.Critical Reader 22:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the Dolbee article, I didn't know about it. I guess you've been busy ;). Fyi, you guessed wrong that I'm the curator of the show and you also guessed wrong that it was me commenting in that discussion. I guess a number of people have caught on. Anyway, I think the Dolbee article gives us a way out of the impasse.

First, there is no reason for you to keep changing the new section that I've created. As much as you would like your manufactured "controversy" to be as important as the other decades of this museum, it simply isn't. It relates to this single exhibit. This museum has been around for decades. That's why I created the "New Exhibit" section which you continue to remove. There is no logical reason to remove it. There is every logical reason for its presence.

Second, in that "new exhibit" section, once again your "controversy" is not the only matter relevant to the exhibit. Quite the contrary. As an example, even if Golb was invited to the speakers' series, he would be one of 22 speakers. The show contains far more than just scrolls so that even if his was the only dissenting theory about the scrolls, his dissent has nothing to do with the Russian, British and other materials there. Additionally, somebody, like me, might seek to include information about how the show is received and how many people are going, etc. Somebody, like me, might wish to list other relevant information about the exhibit such as the lecture series. You need a section for that and it has nothing to do with the history of the museum. Finally, one day, there will be another "new exhibit" and at that point, this discussion will either become moot or relegated to an "old exhibit" section.

This, of course, is not intended to offend your sensibilities but the fact is that the number of scholars' theories involved is far greater than one or two. As you keep pointing out in your attacks all over the Internet, the lecture series alone will involve 22 scholars. As much as you would like the world to believe that it's 22 against one, I would guess the other lecturers would like to think that they have an original idea worth its own space every once in a while. For that reason, I proposed the subheading "One Scholar's Opposition." To buttress your argument above, you seek to include Eisenman. Well, to my knowledge, Eisenman has not been quoted anywhere except the LA Times article and nowhere are there characters running around the Internet suggesting that he be invited to speak or that his work is amazing. If you can show otherwise (with content written before today please), then we can call the section "Two Scholars' Opposition" or "Two Scholars' Dissent." Then, in this section we would give equal weight and links to Golb and to Eisenman.

Third, when you link to Golb's paper, I believe that is valid. When you link to some Internet character commenting about this "controversy" that isn't valid. If the situation was reversed, you would reject "their" input as well. As such, I don't see this as a point that can be published at all. However, the question is whether the LA Times article should be valid when it was written by a reporter who hadn't seen the exhibit and includes comments by people who have no clue what's in it other than relying on "detailed Internet descriptions." If "detailed Internet descriptions" were satisfying, people wouldn't be attending the show. Tickets are $28. If reading a book was like reading a book review, then the publishing industry would be bankrupt. Would you like me to form an opinion on Golb's Scrolls book by reading the back cover? I can tell you a bunch of stuff about the show and you cannot tell me a thing except for what you’ve read. Likewise, with the coverage of this "controversy" in the LA Times. However, you have provided us with a solution. Dolbee's article is perfect. It describes the "controversy." It gives us Golb's side and in contrast, a Qumran-Essenes scholar’s side. It gives us a lengthy quote by Levitt Kohn the curator of the exhibit. It even gives your "characters" a chance to express their views about Golb and the controversy in the comments section.

I propose the following version and I cannot see how you would object since it amply covers your concerns, addresses my concerns, gives long space to Golb's accusations, offers the differing point of view by Freedman, and explains in far greater detail than the LA Times article what the curator sought to achieve. Also, it is written by a reporter who covered the exhibit and who had seen it first hand and who had obviously interviewed Golb and the others in person:

Newest Exhibit – Dead Sea Scrolls
From June 29–December 31, 2007, the Museum will be hosting the largest American exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls to date.

The San Diego Union Tribune covered the first hours of opening day of the exhibit: "After three years of planning, San Diego's first exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls opened yesterday to visitors from San Diego to Georgia, who pronounced it somewhere between “fascinating” and “fantastic.”"

One Scholar Dissents
In a series of editorials and articles, historian and manuscript scholar Norman Golb, has subjected the announced exhibit to sharp criticism, suggesting, on the basis of the museum's detailed description of the exhibit on its website, that the museum has taken sides in a bitter academic dispute.

In a June 28, 2007 article in the Union Tribune, Sandi Dolbee briefly covered the disagreement to the exhibit expressed by Golb:

“David Noel Freedman endorses the most popular theories about the scrolls – that some were written in Jerusalem and others created at Qumran by an esoteric Jewish sect known as the Essenes. He figures the Essenes hid the scrolls in the caves to protect them from soldiers. They never returned to claim them because they either were killed or fled the area.

Dissenters such as Norman Golb of the University of Chicago argue that the scrolls had nothing to do with Qumran. Golb said the scrolls were the work of Jews in Jerusalem who took them to these caves for safekeeping just before the fall of the Second Temple. He resents exhibitions like this one that try to connect Qumran to the scrolls and notes that the museum's lecture series does not include speakers with these maverick points of view. “The people who put on this exhibit apparently want to have a one-sided show and want to brainwash the public,” Golb said. Risa Levitt Kohn (the show’s curator) disagreed. “We have tried to go with the general scholarly consensus,” she said. “This is an academic pursuit. If you introduce too many competing theories into the show, you walk away with nothing.” Still, Kohn said, there are ample explanations throughout the show that no one knows with absolute certainty about any of this.”

One commentator has argued that Golb's criticisms are unfounded because he did not see the actual exhibit before publishing them. As of the opening of the exhibit, the San Diego Natural History Museum had not made any additional response to Golb's allegations. Thesultan 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thesultan,

I take it you are saying that you were not participating in the Union-Tribune discussion, and that it was also not you who added the defamatory tirade to the "Norman Golb" article a few nights ago. At any rate, the point is that, "absurd" as it may seem, we are obliged to deal with each other and come to an agreement, otherwise we're not going to get anywhere. As for your claims, I strongly disagree, for the following reasons. (1) The controversy is not "manufactured," it exists. The exhibit, funded with $6,000,000 and presenting the most widely publicized set of discoveries ever made in the history of biblical archaeology, is by far the most important one ever held at this museum and one of the most important ones ever held in this country. This said, I'm not adverse to putting in information about other exhibits as well.

(2) You keep harping away about what you regard as Golb's isolated status, repeatedly attempting to suggest that he's the only one, or just one of a small number, who opposes these exhibits. But the substance of the objection to the lecture series which has led to the controversy is that none of an important group of dissenting scholars, in the plural, have been invited (I leave aside the objections being made to the actual content of the exhibit, which should also be dealt with). As is now well known, an entire series of major archaeologists have all come out opposing the old theory since 1990, but none of them have been invited. Whether you think of this group as "small" or "big" depends on your perspective. In terms of the number of traditional Qumranologists, it's small. In terms of people who have reevaluated the site since 1990, it's big (culminating most recently, in fact, with the official IAA team led by Magen and Peleg--also not invited to participate in the lecture series, even though they are the ones whose conclusions were based on ten seasons of actual digs at Qumran). So the article has to be written from a neutral viewpoint, without suggesting that only a single individual or "maverick" (the term used in the Union-Tribune article, which is why you like it) is "involved" in this controversy, which concerns a question of quite vast social implications, going to the heart of the nature of museum exhibits and how they should treat developments in research.

(3) There is no evidence whatsoever that the Union-Tribune article was based on better acquaintance with the exhibit than the L.A. Times article--this is just your personal opinion. As I stated above, Boehm (of the Times) was obviously guided through the exhibit just like the other reporters, before it opened to the public, and he obviously interviewed people as well, just like Dolbee (of the Union-Tribune). If you want to start quoting the articles, then we have to quote both of them. Your desire to erase the existence of the Times article simply reflects your personal opinion about the substance of the controversy and the exhibit, and there's no point in us getting into an argument about that--the article exists, based on solid investigative reporting, including the curator's statement, obviously made in an interview, about not wishing to "confuse" people; and therefore the controversy exists.

(4) Finally, I would have no objection to removing the word "controversy" from the title of this section, in the interest of neutrality (we could just call it "Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit"); but in that case we wouldn't need a sub-heading "one scholar's objections" either, as the simple word "however" suffices to introduce that portion in a neutral manner. Nor would I have any objection to adding references to other news reports, as long as the article comes out reading in a neutral, objective fashion. But your intent is obviously to try and drown out the controversy in a mass of material that basically just advertizes the exhibit (much of this material, in fact, being generated by the museum's public relations department itself). That would violate the wikipedia policy against advertising a business, which is in fact what happens in your second paragraph about how much people enjoyed the exhibit--you "like" this information because it assuages the pain the controversy apparently gives you, but what is its significance for an encyclopaedia article? Perhaps we can rewrite this portion of the article with terms such as "opinion has been divided"--but you would object to that because of your obsession with the "tiny number" of opponents which to my mind is irrelevant and inaccurate. It would be like saying only a "tiny number" of people denied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war--that is what the government was saying, and it might have seemed that way back then because of Bush's public relations campaign, but we now know that many people within the government itself were deeply upset about what was happening, as better investigative reporting back then would have revealed. So would Bush have been justified if he had said "this is just a manufactured controversy, it's only a tiny number of people saying that stuff, and a wikipedia article on 'Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq' should contain language to the effect that it's just a tiny number--otherwise people would be confused"?

Although I obviously disagree with you, I do understand your feelings, and I appreciate your apparent willingness to engage in a discussion--although again, I am saying this under the assumption that it was not you who kept adding the defamatory and offensive statement to the article on Norman Golb the other night.Critical Reader 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's it for me and Wikipedia. I've seen what I needed. Another stall, another bunch of irrelevant information and comments, including a hostile one, and no movement on the entry. The editors who have managed this exchange should not be proud that the entry hasn't changed in days and that it still contains the contrivances there. Ultimately, I am obviously not as invested in this as Critical Reader. I have been more than accommodating and have proposed two versions of the entry that meet ALL of Wikipedia's standards and which still give this person a serious voice to his claims, which I consider to be false and misleading in the first place. Still, I guess on Wikipedia, one person with an agenda can veto reasonable versions that affect thousands of people and institutions who don't see the same way. I hope somebody is paying Critical Reader to spend all of this time on this but nobody is paying me and I'm going to return to being a bystander.

I hope that an editor will read this. Please know that I have now expended hours communicating with Critical Reader while you didn't communicate with me about this discussion and took no action other than to put up a version that he wanted. By doing that, you enabled him to play for time and refuse a compromise. What's the point? I guess I'd keep debating but writing another hour long comment and entry proposal only to have him repeat his claims after I provided an excellent compromise is foolish. I expected this to be an easy and straighforward change for what I think is a horrible and churlish action by somebody who hasn't seen the show, but it has been anything but. I'm not sure why. Strangely, the truth has been manipulated here and Wikipedia is the sponsor of the twisting. Have a happy 4th of July. Thesultan 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)TheSultan

The "agenda" is obviously TheSultan's. To begin with, he is indeed the one who inserted the offensive ad hominem assault into the article on Norman Golb the other night (I have verified this on the "history" page there). He is obviously driven by personal animosity towards this well-known scholar, and there would simply be no excuse for allowing such resentment to generate the content of an encyclopaedia article. Second, despite his claim to the contrary, his "versions" of this museum article meet none of wikipedia's standards, but are simply an effort on his part to convince readers that "the truth is being manipulated" by a single person who he happens to disagree with. He insists on using one news acount rather than another, because in his personal opinion, one of them is "false and misleading." When I suggest that both accounts be cited in a neutral manner, he has nothing to say.

TheSultan's repeated emphasis of the fact that Golb's statement was made "before seeing the show" is highly misleading. The museum has published an elaborate description of its exhibit on its website, and its representatives have explained in one interview after another that the exhibit presents one theory while merely acknowledging the existence of "other opposing theories". Furthermore, an entire group of opponents of the disputed theory have been excluded from the museum's lecture series, and this exclusion is precisely the focal point of the controversy. One doesn't need to inspect the exhibit to see the announced list of lecturers and raise the question of whether this exclusionary policy is ethically appropriate for a museum. This is precisely what has happened. So what "claims" am I making? That a controversy exists? One newspaper after another has been publishing articles concerning one or another aspect of this controversy but, rather than agreeng to deal with it in a neutral manner, TheSultan manifestly seeks to deny or belittle its existence.

In conclusion, for the reasons stated, I believe the tagged version of the article is appropriate enough, but here is my best attempt at a simplified compromise in light of everything that has been said on both sides:

Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit
From June 29–December 31, 2007, the Museum is hosting the largest American exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls to date.

The opening of the exhibit was widely covered by newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune.

However, in a series of editorials and articles, historian and manuscript scholar Norman Golb has subjected the exhibit to sharp criticism. Specifically, Golb has suggested that the Museum, through its projection of a "virtual reality" film designed to support the Qumran-sectarian theory of Scroll origins, and through its exclusion from the lecture series accompanying the exhibit of scholars who disagree with that theory, has misled the public on the current state of research in this field of studies.

A Los Angeles Times article quoted Golb as stating: "The museum, instead of guiding viewers toward an understanding of the controversy over the origin and significance of the scrolls, manifestly undertakes to manipulate the layman's comprehension of them." The article also quoted Dr. Robert Eisenman as objecting to the Museum's lecture series, and the exhibit's curator, Dr. Risa Levitt Kohn, as stating in response: "You don't want to confuse people with so many competing theories."

The San Diego Union-Tribune also noted Golb's objection to the lecture series, and quoted Dr. Kohn as responding: "We have tried to go with the general scholarly consensus ... This is an academic pursuit. If you introduce too many competing theories into the show, you walk away with nothing."

Letters and comments published on various news sites and biblical studies blogs took issue with Dr. Kohn's explanation, citing articles in The New York Times and other news sources that have signaled the lack of any current consensus on the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The San Diego Jewish World pointed readers to the Los Angeles times article, stating: "Curator Risa Levitt Kohn is quoted as saying she doesn't believe it does the public any good to have too many theories, lest they conclude scholars don't know anything."

One blog has published a chronology of the events involved in the controversy.

[end]

It seems to me that this is an entirely fair and reasonable version. It presents the relevant statements in objective fashion, including both of the major news accounts to date and signaling the elements of the controversy without taking sides on the issue. I doubt if TheSultan will agree, since his objective is apparently somehow to deny that a controversy exists to begin with, but I offer it in case he is willing to proceed in a spirit of compromise--let him propose changes or additions to this version and we can continue negotiating.Critical Reader 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
Please talk, don't revert. Thanks. Moreschi Talk 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources
I have removed a section of this article about a controversy, that is basically the non-notable viewpoint of one blogger writing under the pseudonym "Charles Gadda". See also Talk:William_Schniedewind ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See my response to "Jossi" at Talk:William_Schniedewind.

Here, he should not have eliminated this entire portion of the article; rather, he should have removed the references to blogs, while keeping the L.A. Times article and the Forward editorial by Golb at a minimum.

Jossi's remark about "basically the non-notable viewpoint of one blogger" is truly preposterous: Charles Gadda obviously has nothing to do with editorials in the Forward and articles in the Los Angeles Times.

Unfortunately, Jossi's contribution here appears to be more the product of someone who is an advocate of the San Diego Natural History Museum (which is advertizing itself through this article), rather than someone who is concerned about the neutral treatment of controversial topics.Critical Reader 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record: I have never visited that museum, I have no POV on this subject, and I am not an advocate of the museum or any of the associated articles. I am trying to tell you with a lot of patience that Wikipedia has certain content policies that you are ignoring with your WP:POVPUSH. This is becoming quite tedious, and I would appreciate it if you tone-down your rhetoric and contribute constructively to this project. If you cannot do that, please consider editing other wikis rather than Wikipedia in which there are no such constrains. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Show me a single "blog" in any of the following text:

From June 29–December 31, 2007, the Museum is hosting the largest American exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls to date.

The opening of the exhibit was widely covered by newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune.

However, in a Forward editorial, historian and manuscript scholar Norman Golb has subjected the exhibit to sharp criticism, suggesting that it is designed to mislead the public on the current state of research in this field of studies.

A Los Angeles Times article quoted another Golb article as stating: "The museum, instead of guiding viewers toward an understanding of the controversy over the origin and significance of the scrolls, manifestly undertakes to manipulate the layman's comprehension of them." The article also quoted Dr. Robert Eisenman as objecting to the Museum's lecture series, and the exhibit's curator, Dr. Risa Levitt Kohn, as stating in response: "You don't want to confuse people with so many competing theories."

The San Diego Union-Tribune also noted Golb's objection to the lecture series, and quoted Dr. Kohn as responding: "We have tried to go with the general scholarly consensus ... This is an academic pursuit. If you introduce too many competing theories into the show, you walk away with nothing."

Will Jossi insist on eliminating this entire portion of the article, rather than keeping this version, which does not mention a single blog?Critical Reader 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to shout. This is the text I deleted:

From June 29–December 31, 2007, the Museum will be hosting the largest American exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls to date.

The San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego's largest newspaper covered the first hours of opening day of the exhibit: "After three years of planning, San Diego's first exhibition of the Dead Sea Scrolls opened yesterday to visitors from San Diego to Georgia, who pronounced it somewhere between “fascinating” and “fantastic.”"

However, in a series of editorials and articles, historian and manuscript scholar Norman Golb, has subjected the announced exhibit to sharp criticism, suggesting, on the basis of the museum's detailed description of the exhibit on its website, that the museum has taken sides in a bitter and widening academic dispute.

Following in the wake of Golb’s criticisms, readers on several biblical studies blogs have been attacking the exhibit, arguing, for example, that since the Museum's motives for taking sides in the debate over Qumran are unclear, its conduct violates the "ethical transparency" standard of the American Association of Museums. A Los Angeles Times article of 6/25/07 quoted Golb as stating: "The museum, instead of guiding viewers toward an understanding of the controversy over the origin and significance of the scrolls, manifestly undertakes to manipulate the layman's comprehension of them." The article further quoted the exhibit's curator, Dr. Risa Levitt Kohn, as stating: "You don't want to confuse people with so many competing theories."

Commentators on various websites took issue with this statement. Thus, for example, the San Diego Jewish World pointed readers to the Los Angeles times article, stating: "Curator Risa Levitt Kohn is quoted as saying she doesn't believe it does the public any good to have too many theories, lest they conclude scholars don't know anything." Similarly, a contributor to one discussion board ironized that "I think we can all agree with her. Yes, we must not allow the faithful to know that there is more than one interpretation of the facts. After all, that would only confuse them and in their confused state they might lose faith. Yes, we must protect them from the truth at all costs."

One commentator has argued that Golb's criticisms are unfounded because he did not see the actual exhibit before publishing them. As of the opening of the exhibit, the San Diego Natural History Museum had not made any additional response to Golb's allegations.

One anonymous blog has published a chronology of the events involved in the controversy.

The deleted text is poorly written, violates WP:NPOV and contains references to blogs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about the bold characters, but my aim was simply to demarcate the text in-between the two statements (and not to shout--not my style). As I'm sure you're aware, I expended a great deal of energy over this portion of the article during the discussion with "Thesultan," the text was then fortunately blocked because of the edit-war he engaged me in while refusing to discuss, and so it is a bit surprising to see it now suddenly eliminated altogether with no discussion whatsoever. I appreciate your points about blogs and NPOV, but the text I have offered (demarcated by the two bold statements) has no references to blogs whatsoever and is entirely neutral in tone and outlook. I hope you will discuss and reinstate this portion of the article in the neutral form offered; otherwise the article will be a mere advertisement for a museum which is the object of controversy, and I will have to conclude that wikipedia has forsaken its democratic editorial policies.Critical Reader 05:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The text you presented have numerous problems: (a) it is poorly written; (b) it is described as a "dead scroll controversy", when actually that is just the perception of one scholar and a few non-notable blogs including yours; (c) We are not describing in the article specific exhibits, so I do not understand why this exhibit needs to be so prominently described; (e) if there is agreement that this exhibit was so significant that needs to be described, then we can do it in a neutral manner, i.e. describing the exhibit, the reviews written about it, its contents, significance, etc. and also the fact that one scholar was not happy about it for reasons X and Z. As it stands the section a good example of quote mining and undue weight. Want to re-write it within these contrains? Please do so and submit here for assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The text I have proposed doesn't contain the word "controversy," and describes the two views in a neutral fashion, by simply quoting them one after the other. And there are plenty of reasons to focus on this particular $6,000,000 exhibit--it's the most important one, both in terms of numbers and cultural significance, ever held at this museum.

What I see here is that by fiat and contrived argumentation you have censored a portion of an article that doesn't strike your fancy. The text was not blocked on such grounds; it was blocked because of an editing war--someone was refusing to discuss and reverting over and over again instead. You should have let the text stand and pointed out the problems that you see in it as part of the typical democratic editing process; instead, while giving lip service to neutrality, you have become a public relations spokesperson for the museum by declaring that criticism of the exhibit is a "minority view."

By your interpretation of the "minority view" principle, an article written when most people still fancied that the earth was flat couldn't have mentioned the opposing view; criticism of a museum exhibit excluding the views of Galileo could not, at that time, be mentioned. By this token, the entire Encyclopedia of Diderot et al., with its refutations of all kinds of commonly held opinions, could never have existed and the Enlightenment would be no more than a footnote in some dusty book.

At any rate, the fact that the two major newspapers that described criticism of the San Diego exhibit only quoted two scholars, doesn't mean disapproval of the museum's policy is a minority view; to figure that out, you would have to take a poll, which hasn't been done. Those articles didn't quote so many other scholars either. Apparently, you simply assume it's a "minority view" because people are not demonstrating in the street. With $6,000,000 and a public relations department, it's not that difficult to fabricate a "majority."

What is more, the underlying view that has been censored out of the museum's exhibit (just the way you have censored criticism of the museum out of this article) can most certainly not be called a minority view today after the archaeological publications of the past decade. (In fact, a poll taken at an international conference on the Copper Scroll showed a majority favoring the view of that text censored by the museum. One can only assume that none of the people who attended that conference have been invited to lecture at the museum.)

Thus, your argument strikes me as plainly obscurantist. You seem, in this instance, to be less concerned about a significant cultural issue than about demonstrating that you are not being entirely arbitrary--your censorship can be justified by invoking some principle. Congratulations--you have the power, and can impose it according to the dictates of your will--I imagine you feel good about having assisted the museum in pulling the wool over the eyes of the public.Critical Reader 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, and I would kindly ask you stop accusing me or others of "obscurantism". If you want that material re-added, please re-write it within the constrains of our content policies. Two newspaper articles of considerable length give one short sentence about this "controversy" as you call it. As for your comments here about "fabrication", I would suggest that you do not use these talk pages to cast aspersions on people and/or organizations. You can use your blog or personal home page for that. Finally, if this was a " significant cultural issue", it would have been widely reported, which is not the case, and again, Wikipedia is not an place to engage in advocacy. If you have issues with that museum, write to your congressman or to the museum: Wikipedia is not the place to right the wrongs you perceive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He says "wikipedia is not censored," and then he proceeds to demand that the guy stop saying certain things... It seems to me that not all "significant cultural issues" are widely reported on. The Los Angeles Times article has a lot more than one short sentence on the topic, indeed the title of the article already indicates that it's about a "lively debate." It quotes from Golb and then from someone else too, and then it quotes the museum curator defending the exhibit. Sounds like that meets wiki guidelines to me.128.122.89.111 22:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it meets the guidelines. He's just annoyed at me, so he comes up with a justification for dumping this portion of the article.  The rest of the article reads like an advertisement for the museum (so-and-so "earned his reputation," the staff "upheld professional standards," etc.), but he doesn't dump that.Critical Reader 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * so fix it. If there are weasel words, these can be easily changed to more neutral ones, and as I said above please try Writing for the enemy and come up with a good section about the Qumran exhibit that does not have the problems as explained above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see any mention of "upheld professional standards". Johnson had earned his reputation with his design of the Fine Arts Gallery (now the Museum of Art) and the downtown San Diego Trust & Savings Bank, among other buildings. seems OK to me. Better, would be if you can do some research abnd write an article about that architect. That is what we do in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I started the stub at William Templeton Johnson. You are welcome to add and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, I don't agree that the section as I redrafted it has the problems you say it has. Your original objections--no blogs, NPOV--were good, even if they were not grounds for entirely eliminating the section. Those problems were solved, and now you come up with "minority view," which merely reflects your personal opinion on how majority and minority views get expressed in our society. "The earth is flat" isn't a good analogy to this situation at all, and a major Los Angeles Times article is far more reliable than a bunch of articles sent out to local newspapers by the museum's PR department. So you have your opinion about what constitutes a controversy or debate, I have mine.

If your concern is neutrality, allow me suggest (see again my new version above, between the statements in bold characters) that instead of the sentence "The opening of the exhibit was widely covered by newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune," one could say simply "The opening of the exhibit was favorably covered by numerous newspapers." That would perhaps work better with the following "However."

At any rate, you should (1) post the section; (2) suggest your own changes to improve it (I'm sure you can come up with something because you're obviously a superb editor, and I say that despite our disagreements); and (3) signal it with a flag as disputed or requiring further sources, so other people can have their own say, rather than eliminating it while any further edits are blocked. How many people read these discussions anyway?

P.s. You don't see the words "upheld professional standards" because you're reading the thing in a selective fashion -- try looking at the last sentence in the WORLD WAR II section (the entirety of which section, of course, subtly glorifies the museum's patriotic history).Critical Reader 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not repeat my arguments which I made above. In my opinion the article is good as it is now. If you want to add a section about that exhibit, do so within our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean pursuant to your interpretation of the content policies. Your arbitrary imposition of this "opinion" of yours doesn't speak well for wikipedia. No person in his right mind would waste time on this, knowing that it will be carefully blocked each time under one pretext or another.Critical Reader 04:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with my assessment, and the assessment of other experienced editors as presented in this talk page, you can pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me, but I believe our discussion here has shown how "dispute resolution" works at wikipedia. The tone of the article's narrative is set from the beginning: the museum was "the region's primary source of scientific culture, serving a small but growing community eager for information...." You, an experienced editor at wikipedia, have decided to allow this institution to publish an advertisement about itself in the form of a wikipedia article. At the same time, you have specifically eliminated precisely the portion that informed readers of a current debate over whether the institution is living up to its commitment to "scientific culture," which of course depends on the public's having access to such information to begin with. You have resolved a dispute by eliminating a group of dissenting voices. Job well done.Critical Reader 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just check other Category:Museums articles and tell me if there is any difference with this one. Readers need to be informed of notable aspects about the subject, and you are welcome to expand on these if you are willing to do so within the parameters set forth in our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I won't waste my time. Hopefully, other museums don't stifle scientific debate, publish advertisements and get away with it due to the contrived interpretation of parameters by experienced wikipedia editors.Critical Reader 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy"
One person comment in an article does not make it a "controversy". You have been advised several times not to mis-use Wikipedia to further your aims. I advise you again to take this into consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add a section about the Museum exhibit, and you want this to remain in the article:
 * 1) Describe the exhibit, its purpose, when it started, what it includes, etc
 * 2) Provide materials from reliable sources that describe the works presented in the exhibit
 * 3) Include a summary of the main exhibits, including a summary of the virtual tour
 * 4) Include any other commentary by observers

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, statements in two major newspapers combined with three reviews by a prominent scholar, does indeed make a controversy. You have admitted to having "opinions" on the substance of this controversy. If you wish to expand on the section to improve it, do so, but please do not abuse your authority as an official wikipedia editor to delete my contribution.Critical Reader (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are as official an editor as I am. All I am asking is that you stop using Wikipedia to further your opinions, and instead work towards what is best for the project, not just the POV that you have already expressed in countless blog posts. That is what blogs are good for. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I may or may not have "blogging" activities and opinions, just like you (you have in fact admitted to having opinions, in the Virtual Qumran discussion; you even "threw oil on the flames" in the Schniedewind discussion). Here, you are using your status as an administrator to impose your opinion and delete my work. All I ask is that you "expand on my work in a collaborative fashion" instead of deleting it, just as you said on the Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls page. That's what being civil instead of arbitrary means. How would you react if I deleted your "reception" portion of the Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls article, with a list of instructions as to how to improve it? I would like to know what you plan to do if I undo your deletion of my work.Critical Reader (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Forming an opinion on a subject I am editing is quite different from having a conflict of interest. My removal is consistent with WP:BRD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how your removal is consistent with the following (from WP:BRD):

BRD ... requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. You can try using it in less volatile situations, but take care when doing so. Some have even taken to simply declaring their intent by adding the shortcut "WP:BRD" at the front of their edit summary. This seems to help keep people from taking as much offense at proposed changes. In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve, and convince them that you are acting in good faith.

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus. It is a way for editors who have a good grasp of a subject to more rapidly engage discussion and make changes that are probably good, in articles where a "discuss first" method of consensus is unlikely to lead to quick progress.Critical Reader (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely you knew I would take offense to your deletion of my work? I have reverted, so we can discuss. Please edit the section to improve it, rather than deleting it.Critical Reader (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I have no conflict of interest here whatsover. I'm entitled to have an opinion and express it wherever I like. I'm not a party to the museum controversy at all, and have no "interest" in its outcome.Critical Reader (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tagged as violation of WP:UNDUE as well as unbalanced. Will seek dispute resolution on this matter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to that at all; that's what you should have done originally, instead of deleting my work.Critical Reader (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added material as per WP:NPOV, a think that we expect from all editors. I would appreciate that next time you edit, that you abide by that policy which is non-negotiable by staying close to the sources and without cherry-picking quotes to suit your POV. This is the diff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I could say the same to you about the sources you used for the Golb book article and the way you quoted them; this is a collaborative process. I have no objection to what you've done here except that you have editorialized and violated NPOV. I have tweaked with that in mind, and created paragraph divisions. Note that Golb (unlike Freedman) wrote his Ph.D. on the scrolls; his publications on the topic go back to the late 1950's and he known to have taught a graduate seminar on the topic throughout the 60's and 70's while keeping his growing skepticism about the Essene theory in reserve (I provide you with this info, simply because I think you're probably in the process of learning a lot about the community of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars these days).Critical Reader (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Id did not violate NPOV, as I stayed as close to the sources as possible. The article calls Glob a dissenter; the article does not say anything about Glob having studied the scrolls for 50 years. Please remain as close as possible to the sources without adding or subtracting information to support one POV or another. Your initial edit was very poor in the NPOV department as stated by my initial revert. Then I expanded the article based on the sources you provided and from which you selectively quoted, so do not make spurious claims about my edits, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please do not use scare quotes to diminish a viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not using "scare quotes": if you don't use quotes, it isn't clear if you are quoting the article or if you yourself (i.e., wikipedia) is affirming something. Therefore, the quotes are necessary. I have no trouble with the word "dissenter," but it has to be quoted sparingly, otherwise the article violates NPOV.Critical Reader (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. Theres in an overwhelming number of sources that describe a certain "consensus" and a certain "dissension" in this debate. Given time, it may resolve itself, change emphasis or whatever, as has happened again and again in the realm of historical revisionism. New evidence is uncovered, new hypotheses raised, new scholars come up with alternative hypotheses, etc. In Wikipedia we describe significant viewpoints and attribute these to those that hold them (the main focuse of WP:NPOV). We do that by reporting what reliable sources say about a subject (the main point of WP:V). And we do not speculate or create new syntheses of these sources (the main focus of WP:NOR). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encylopedia, not a vistiors bureau brochure
way too much "wow" rather than objectively stating what is at the museum 208.127.236.187 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)