Talk:Simcha Jacobovici/Archive 1

Not the place to spew anti-judaism (or pro-Judaism for that matter)
Deleted disgusting diatribes from jew-haters, as well as unnecessary defences. This talkpage is to discuss content and editing of the main article. Please keep it that way.71.125.227.129 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

More of his comments on "Jesus Family Tomb" film
I decided not to include this information on the main page as it seems to be more about the Jesus family tomb film and not specifically about him, I include it here for interested readers

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/us/27jesus.html In an interview, Mr. Jacobovici was asked why the filmmakers did not conduct DNA testing on the other ossuaries to determine whether the one inscribed "Judah, son of Jesus" was genetically related to either the Jesus or Mary Magdalene boxes; or whether the Jesus remains were actually the offspring of Mary. "We're not scientists. At the end of the day we can't wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA," he said. "We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, `I've done my job as a journalist.' "

And this from "Scholars, Clergy Slam Jesus Documentary" By MARSHALL THOMPSON at Associated Press
 * Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the documentary, said the implications "are huge."

"But they're not necessarily the implications people think they are. For example, some believers are going to say, well this challenges the resurrection. I don't know why, if Jesus rose from one tomb, he couldn't have risen from the other tomb," Jacobovici told "Today." ...Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary - the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel - might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box. "I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. "If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus."


 * It has since been announced that through close examination of the patina on the James Ossuary inscriptions matched perfectly those on the Talpiot ossuaries. They are from the same tomb.

Simcha seems very eager to accept the claim about the so called James Ossuary (he did a whole episode trying to delcare it true in his The Naked Archaeologist now he goes so far as inluding placing it at this tomb in this new film despite the fact as http://www.dakotavoice.com/200702/20070226_4.html points out:
 * Fourth-century church historian Eusebius makes quite clear that the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries.

Perhaps this information should be included in the wiki-article about the film.
 * Wowaconia 11:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This section is disambiguous and should either be balanced or removed. Yahshammah (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JFTcover.jpg
The image Image:JFTcover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

looks like an interesting page
i've been asked to take a look at this page and see if i can lend any assistance. it looks like an interesting page. i'll add it to my watch list. shalom IsraelXKV8R (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are the citations?
What the hell happened to the citations on this page? I could not find them in any of the past 500+ revisions.

I don't know about the citations, but this is the worst article I've seen in Wikipedia. I am Simcha and I impore Wiki to have it balanced or removed. The arguments against me quoted here are invariably ad hominem, completely lacking in substance, and quite frankly reek of religious animosity. ~cj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.254.8.104 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Exodus" Controversy section Confusing
I read through the blurb about this controversy, and I don't understand what it's about. What theory about the Exodus is most embraced? Does Simcha argue against this theory? What about his position is controversial? The section appears to assume familiarity with the reader already knowing the answer to these questions. Please "flesh out" this section. It actually does not appear to be about the Exodus at all; rather, the main point of the paragraph is, "He depicted evidence in a biased manner while claiming it was unbiased. Oh, and since I have to cite someone, here's half of a sentence with some guy complaining about something he released." The entire thing is poorly written; please revise. (Also, how do I date my signature? Some robot tags the date since I keep omitting it.) -- Newagelink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC).


 * From what I remember there were four major theories, and I think I can remember some of their main proponents. There was the 'Conquest' Theory which basically has the story take place as the Bible said it did. This theory was put forward by William F. Albright and supported by people like Yigael Yadin.


 * Then you had the nomadic pastorialist theory where you had Hebrews in Egypt who slowly migrated one or two families at a time over two or so centuries and stayed in Canaan as pastorialists and nomads and then when there were enough they overwhelmed the Canaanites. I can't remember whose this is.


 * Next is my personal favourite, 'the revolting peasants' theory; this theory states that the Israelites were an underclass in Canaanite society and at some point threw off the chains of the bourgeois Canaanites, rose up and overthrew them etc. This was put forward by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald. Typical Marxist school theory. These three are for the most part not widely accepted among biblical archaeologists, except of course for the Conquest theory by many maximalists.


 * The theory that is gaining steam now, and which I subscribe to, is Israel Finkelstein's 'Indigenous Israelite' hypothesis which is that the Israelites were a sub-group of Canaanites who eventually grew and achieved dominance in the area. There is also the recently-introduced Sea Peoples-related theory by Eric H. Cline, which builds on Finkelstein's and says that the Israelites were Canaanites in the Northern hills of Israel. The Sea Peoples came in, did what they do best and then the Israelites came down and took over the Canaanite cities. Sources: From Eden to Exile by Eric H. Cline and The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Niel Silberman. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bryant G. Wood
This article, which as others have indicated above is clearly biased against its subject, relies largely on a critique of Jacobovici by Bryant G. Wood. Let me quote from the current opening phrase from the current Wikipedia entry re Wood: "Bryant G. Wood is a Young Earth creationist..." That an entire article should rely largely on someone with so clear a religious and anti-scientific bias discredits the article's arguments. Moreover, that the article can be said to make such arguments is intrinsically in opposition to the idea of an encyclopedia. If such arguments are recounted, they must be framed as coming from a source with a bias, and must be balanced by a representative cross-section of other views.

While I am not inclined to get involved in the inner workings of Wikipedia, I would suggest to those who are that they take action to edit this article to remove its blatant bias.

Adam Holland (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked around and was basically told that Bryant G. Wood is a "religious fanatic", thought I'm not gonna say who said it specifically. Jodi Magness was recommended as a better critic of Jacobovici. Btw, this article should be treated according to WP:FRINGE imo as the lion's share of Biblical Archaeologists, apart from Hershel Shanks regard it as such. I'll look for a written source stating that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

New film:The Nails of the Cross
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2064920,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=216238 "Simcha Jacobovici's "The Nails of the Cross" claims that the artifacts turned up in a Tel Aviv lab; many call the film a publicity stunt." "What we are bringing to the world is the best archaeological argument ever made that two of the nails from the crucifixion of Jesus have been found," he said in an interview," "The Israel Antiquities Authority, which oversaw the Jerusalem excavation, said in reaction to the film's release that it had never been proven beyond doubt that the tomb was the burial place of Caiaphas. It also said that nails are commonly found in tombs." http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/04/14/did-filmmaker-find-nails-used-to-crucify-jesus-discovery-news/

http://www.skynews.com.au/offbeat/article.aspx?id=600724&vId=

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/apr/12/jesus-crucifixion-nails-discovery

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-12/nails-used-to-crucify-jesus-may-have-been-found-filmmaker-says-in-israel.html

http://www.therecord.com/news/world/article/515812--nails-found-20-years-ago-may-have-been-used-in-crucifixion-filmmaker-says http://www.omaha.com/article/20110416/LIVING/704169884

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/archaeologist-finds-jesus-nails_n_848242.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20110413/tsc-2-000-year-old-nails-may-be-tied-to-c2ff8aa.html

Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Excessive negative criticism
This article contains extensive documentation of criticism of this person's films, and it seems excessive. The amount of detail seems too high, and there is no positive commentary. Some editors put a lot of work into putting this criticism in this article. Does anyone want to discuss paring it back a bit?--Jarhed (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * O' contraire. There's not enough criticism of this phony-baloney new-age psuedo-archeologist.  He uses psuedo-science to prove his dubious interpretations of an archaic religious mythology.  It would probably be more interesting if he used his BS to prove the historicity of Greek myth.


 * If only we had that one last bit of missing evidence that would prove once and for all that Jacobovici is a charlatan. Oh, here it is. On the History Channel.  The Naked Archeologist!  At last, we've done it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.176.182 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article gives extreme undue weight to negative criticism of this individual. I added appropriate tags. Marokwitz (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of hatred for this fellow in the article. I get the impression that "Bryant G. Wood", whoever he is, wrote the article just so that he could list his criticisms.

As for those saying he's not a real archeologist - stop your complaining. I (and a great many viewers apparently) would rather listen to a passionate "amateur" than a professional who is afraid to admit they're wrong any day of the week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.186.171 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Best be very careful in how you word such things mate, lest you accidentally violate WP:OUTING <--- Srs Wiki Bsns. Read it carefully, because I'm sure that's not your intention.


 * I could give a long-winded reply to your other thing, but I'll just put a short non-boring one (as the long-winded one can be shot down with tl;dr and is filled with crap no one wants to hear). He isn't an archaeologist because he doesn't have anything similar to a formal education in the field and only picks the bits of evidence that he likes when it contradicts all the other evidence we have that says otherwise. Maybe only .05% of archaeologists are afraid of being proven wrong (That we are is a common misconception propogated by people who wonder why we can't accept the theory that the Great Pyramid was a pump). We don't mind being proven wrong, it's just you need to do it right. You need to put together real evidence and a good theory and submit it for review by other archaeologists and convince them you are correct. New theories come into archaeology all the time that completely contradict old ones. It's just because people have done their research and proven their theories are most likely to their peers. Otherwise we'd never have new thinking! =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally understand why this article might seem overall negative, after all it says the Princeton Theological Seminary went out of its way to specifically correct Jacobovici's (abbreviated as J for brevity's sake) belief that a symposium at Princeton supported one of his theories. That's harsh, but since J says he's a religious scholar, criticism from recognized scholars and institutions in the same field are unavoidably relevant. Anyone with a new, unsupported idea in academia is bound to attract rebuttal and if we ignore valid sources just because they happen to disagree with J this article loses WP:NPOV. --Anynobody(?) 05:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody said that reliable sources should be dropped, however Wikipedia policy is to maintain DUE WEIGHT. The guy got dozens of awards, where are the positive critics? Marokwitz (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, this talk section is FUELED with emotionalism, but ultimately, I agree, it's a major violation of WP:POV and WP:BLP: the article dedicates a section to REVIEW his films. That's not the point of the article, the point of the article is Simcha Jacobovici. If someone wants to review his films, there are websites explicitly for that, like IMDB, or separate pages for each film. A few examples, "O' contraire. There's not enough criticism of this phony-baloney new-age psuedo-archeologist. He uses psuedo-science to prove his dubious interpretations of an archaic religious mythology," is an emotional rant that disregards objectivity and isn't an argument for the excessive criticism in the article. Another example, "He isn't an archaeologist because he doesn't have anything similar to a formal education in the field," and "You need to put together real evidence and a good theory and submit it for review by other archaeologists and convince them you are correct," which are deconstructively bogus appeals to authority or consensus-- the formal education and 'good theory' implied here isn't formal education in the field nor 'good theory' with real evidence, it's formal education in the field and 'good theory' with real evidence consistent with Say Herro's opinions concerning the practice of archaeology hence the fallacious qualification of "convince them you are correct"-- if the evidence is there, it speaks for itself, depending on the subject's experience, and doesn't need rhetoric or flowery language. If Mr. Jacobovici's evidence has holes, great, point it out constructively, write an article, and then find a social platform to voice it-- Wiki isn't that platform. It would be much better if we eliminate the 'review' section, create a filmography section that links to his films, and then a separate section for criticism appealing to WP:BLP criteria. Thoughts? TheObserverEffect (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Say Herro was my talkpage link at the time. He has no evidence, but you are absolutely right that we need articles pointing out why his theories are wrong and how he misinterprets what he considers his evidence. They are not hard to find thankfully. =) We should remember btw that his theories are fringe and as such should be approached using WP:FRINGE. WP:BLP must be respected of course, nothing libellous, just legitimate criticism from established experts in the field. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a paragraph typed out here but I accidentally pressed refresh, but in short, I understand the importance of Wiki:FRINGE. However, the Wiki:FRINGE page states to present neutral descriptions, and further down on the Wiki:NPOV page under impartial tone, it further clarifies by stating Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. The entire reviews of the films section was a commentary-- the first film, Exodus, was listed without an actual review or summary of the information the film conveys. I made some arrangements by removing the commentary/criticism from the reviews section and placing them under a newly-created general criticism section, then deleted the reviews section. No material was removed or deleted, but re-arranged so there's more cohesion; in the interest of WP:BLP, I also placed Awards first and then followed it with criticisms, and added his upcoming book information under bibliography. Does anyone object or find these edits unreasonable? TheObserverEffect (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, even if his films are complete garbage, commentary about them is WP:OR and has no place in the article. I should get some of the criticism from more established archaeologists. The most easily accessible at the moment is Dr. Cargill's criticism. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is article is a joke (constructive criticism)
So much of the article deals with criticism of his films, but none seem to address the content. It would be nice to have a little summary of his films and the main points he raises, and then criticism to the point. It's too bad that by reading about Jacobovici in Wikipedia you get almost no clue about his work.

I quote:

" David Warren, a religious affairs columnist for the Ottawa Citizen who criticized Jacobovici's work on The Lost Tomb of Christ as a "disgusting little exercise in money-making".[6] The column cited Amos Kloner, the first archeologist to examine the site where the ossuaries were taken: "They just want to get money for it. "

What does this have to do with any of the points raised in the film? Why doesn't the article about Steve Jobs state that Apple's main interest is to make a profit?

Another quote:

" in 2003 the Israel Antiquities Authority condemned part of the inscription (though not the name itself) as a modern addition by a forger."

I believe this refers to the James Ossuary, which is still under trial and is probably not a forgery.  The rest of the paragraph belongs to the James Ossuary article.

192.115.29.192 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Marokwitz (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Markowitz, I'm impressed! The article looks way better now!

I don't have enough courage to make major edits yet, unless I invest a lot of time making sure it doesn't screw anything up. I'll take your advice, though, and from now on try and be bold :)

Best 192.115.29.192 (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had this article on my todo list to fix the exact problems that the OP pointed out. Thank you for your excellent edit.Jarhed (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

outregous claims
i'll change it to simething less pov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsemiticlol (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Simcha believes Jesus went to Spain and that Spain is the Gadara in the Bible. He also asserts that indicated by his "sign of Jonah" reference and that Jesus' early disciples and descandants (that's right, one of those) This is all mentioned on Ancients Decoded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaccuratesource (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Prep for RESURRECTION TOMB MYSTERY section
This documentary has not yet aired, so it cannot yet be listed as a published documentary.

However, to prep for the air date, below is a working wikicode of the film. Please feel free to expand/edit the material.

The Resurrection Tomb

The Resurrection Tomb is a documentary that follows The Lost Tomb of Jesus, directed by Jacobovici and produced by Felix Golubev. The film was released in conjunction with a book about the same subject, The Jesus Discovery, issued in March 2012. The documentary and book's claims are the subject of controversy within the archaeological and theological fields, as well as among linguistic and biblical scholars.



Together with named license holders Professor James Tabor of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte and Professor Rami Arav of the University of Nebraska, Jacobovici and his team commissioned a G.E. robotic arm and camera to explore beneath a Jerusalem apartment building and explore first century artifacts. The program documents their project and the findings yielded as a result.

Among the discoveries claimed were:
 * The earliest testimony of faith in the resurrection of Jesus, pre-dating any New Testament Gospels
 * The earliest Christian symbols ever discovered.
 * The oldest first century Christian symbol found in Jerusalem.
 * The earliest representation in Jewish art of a Biblical story.
 * The earliest record of a teaching, or saying, of Jesus passed on orally, perhaps by someone who heard him say it.

A number of scholars have already strongly disagreed with Jacobovici and Tabor's conclusions, including Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel Christian Seminary;   Juan V. Fernández de la Gala, Universidad de Cádiz; Richard Bauckham, Mark Goodacre, Duke University;     James McGrath, Butler University; Joan E. Taylor, King's College London; Steven Fine, Yeshiva University; Robin Jensen, Vanderbilt University; Robert R. Cargill, University of Iowa;

--XKV8R (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC) --XKV8R (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Filmography
The filmography will need some additional fine-tuning. I will do so when I have correct data to complete it. There is a January 2012 tomb of Jesus-related documentary that I have seen and is not listed. In this documentary, Simcha explores the second Talpiyot tomb which is presumably the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. But at present I do not have sufficient data to list it. I could use help.~© Djathink imacowboy  07:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bio section needs major revisions
Most of the material is already listed in the introductory summary, AND in specific sections.
 * It actually lists very little about subject's life.
 * Most of the material is unsourced, has problems with POV, and reads like an advert (almost like an employee wrote it).
 * I'll work over the next few months to bring this section more in line with WP standards.

--XKV8R (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Canadian or Israeli-Canadian?
The article refers to him as both. Which is it? Was he born in Israel and moved to Canada? 72.86.42.38 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Canadian it sais he is Romanian Canadian, here it sais he's israeli canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F08:B05F:FFFF:0:0:4F71:9C84 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism
There needs to be a section for criticism. Jacobovici's finds and claims are too controversial for there to be no mention of it on this page. It is misleading and biased. Stirmysoultogigglemode (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why has the entire criticism section of this article been deleted? --rsgdodge (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This entire article has been reduced to a filmography without addressing that his methods are completely unscientific and are not consistent with the opinions of actual trained experts in the field of archaeology. As such, it reads like a glittery puff piece. Referring to him as an "Emmy winner" is problematic as it tends to lend credence to his pseudoscientific archaeological films, when the Emmys were related to actual investigative journalism about the sex trade. NPOV is all fine and great, but it shouldn't be used to whitewash criticism; if the previous edits were made to reduce the dependence on criticism by a single young-earth creationist, the appropriate response would be to include criticism by experts in the fields he is presenting himself as some sort of authority. He is, effectively, no more an archaeologist than Geraldo Rivera was when he was exploiting the "Mystery of Al Capone's Vaults": archaeology is more than jumping to outrageous conclusions after getting a little dirt on your knees and holding a shovel, and this article should reflect that. 69.244.155.82 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does the article consist entirely of criticism without explaining who he is, what he does, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.29.136 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality of this article being disputed?
It's been over a year since it started being disputed. Why has it not been resolved yet?


 * JohnUnited 15:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality of this article being disputed?
It's been over a year since it started being disputed. Why has it not been resolved yet?


 * --JohnUnited  —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)