Talk:Copper Scroll

message: Since someone has eliminated the separation from the opening statements, it is better to lose them altogether. The attribution to "Henry de Contention" or whomever, leading the Bedouins, is from a very tenuous source. The statement "it was likely written by the Essenes" is completely unsubstantiated. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephconklin (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2005 October 18 (UTC)
That's  Henri de Contenson, who did work in Cave 3. As for the proposed Essene ownership of 3Q15, such is the published view of, among others, Andre Dupont-Sommer. Stephen Goranson, Emile Puech. Coralapus (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary opening statements

message: Paragraph on "Ben-Tzion Luria" is completely unsubstantiated, on Wiki and via web search. Recommend to delete within 14 days unless some documentation is offered.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephconklin (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2006 May 29 (UTC)
Deleted the above-mentioned paragraph. There was no Third Temple and "some scholars" is not substantiation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephconklin (talk • contribs) 04:01, 2006 June 18 (UTC)
: What's this, no Third Temple?  There was Solomon's (1st); there was Nehemiah's (2nd); and there was Herod's (3rd).  There definitely was a third temple in Jerusalem and it was served by Levites (the tribal name of the priestly caste). So the statement given as an argument for deletion of the Luria paragraph (which I have never seen) is in an important challenged detail simply counter-factual. - Reformatikos
: As to Luria, I'm guessing (and only guessing) that this is a relatively early Kabbalistic writer. I don't know enuff about him either way to say whether the paragraph in question should have been removed, but the statement there was no Third Temple is so egregiously erroneous that I wonder about the knowledge of the anti-Lurist. This needs a knowledgeable third-party evaulation from someone without a tendentious sectarian stake in the quarrel. - Reformatikos
: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reformatikos (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2006 November 8 (UTC)
The reference: 	  Lurya, Ben-Tsiyon, 1905-
Title 	 Megilat ha-nehoshet mi-midbar Yehudah [me-et] B.T. Lurya.
Published 	Yerushalayim, ha-Hevrah le-heker ha-mikra be-Yisrael al yede Kriat Sefer 724 [1963]
He dates it later than most.Coralapus (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsubstantiated paragraph

message: Please do not cite the History Channel when entering new information. To stir up interest, they have paid people to say "interesting" things for the camera. These "interesting" things often have no basis in fact/reality, but is someone's dream/idea. Wonderful for them, lousy for an encyclopedia.
Also, new information is almost going to be completely lacking for this scroll. It is the hardest to make any sense out of. Because of that this article teeters on the verge of turning into an urban myth/hoax/nonsense page. Please do not let it. Resist media attempts to "redefine" the copper scroll. Look for scholarly articles of which there will be very very few. Student7 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with citing the History Channel, as long as it's made clear that's the source.  If another scholar disagrees, we can cite that too. Superm401 - Talk 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History Channel

message: Quote from Wikipedia:
"In scholarship, a reference may be a citation of a text that has been used in the creation of a piece of work such as an essay, report, or oration. Its primary purpose is to allow people who read such work to examine the author's sources, either for validity, or simply to learn more about the subject. Such items are often listed at the end of an article or book in a section marked Bibliography or in a section marked References. A Bibliography section will often contain work not cited by the author, but used as background reading or listed as potentially useful to the reader. A section labelled References should contain all and only work cited in the main text. In some circles the latter is known as the EC250 Rule.
Copying of material by another author without proper citation or without required permissions amounts to 'plagiarism'."
Adding books that were not used in the preparation of this document seems to be allowed, but the guidelines seem to want it under "Bibliography" which makes no sense to me. I've never seen this in an article in Wikipedia. To me, it makes no sense to keep adding books that weren't used in preparing the document. It's like saying, "the above is all well and good, but if you want to know the real truth read...."
If really scholarly books are found that say anything different from the article, I suggest that the article be changed (ugh!) and the reference added as a footnote. Student7 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarship and new references

message: i'll draft some folks to make this article a bit more scholarly and a bit less sensational (in the negative sense). XKV8R (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, PiCo has done a pretty good job. it is much improved already. you must have done this literally minutes before i wrote this. it's been on my clean up list for weeks. kudos. XKV8R (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs some work 

message: From the article: "it merits mentioning that the Copper Scroll, unlike some other texts, does not mention the ark of the covenant (unlike 2 Maccabees 2:4-10), nor urim and thummin, nor the temple menorah and other objects sometimes mistakenly associated with it in sensationalistic literature.".  This has been assigned a "citation needed" tag and a comment has been appended referring to the reference, but I'm not too sure what the commenter had in mind.  So a couple of points:
a) Requiring a reference for a negative statement about its content (as opposed to interpretation of that content) is daft, and there are already published translations listed. To reduce it to the absurd, if I wanted to claim the scroll contained no mention of soccer, say, would it need a citation tag? (though one might, obviously, remove such a statement for lack of relevance).  If its not there, its not there. 
b) But if we're claiming significant interpretation / decoding / reconstruction of the text is required to make these references apparent, the statement should reflect that.
c) Such objects cannot be "mistakenly associated" by those advancing theories based upon such an association (though their translation/interpretation might very well be unsubstantiated).
d) The reference to 2Macc is irrelevant?  It needs either explanation or removal. 93.182.179.45 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Temple Treasure

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Copper Scroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070216161923/http://home.flash.net:80/~hoselton/deadsea/cave03.htm to http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/cave03.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We can't suggest that Tait or David have agreed with Feather without reliably sourced quotes from them. That's a matter of WP:BLP policy, particularly as Feather is fringe. Robert Cargill has written that "Others, like author Robert Feather, have written several books touting the Copper Scroll’s connection to treasures from Egypt.  The fact that most scholars have wholly dismissed claims by the Barfields, Golbs, and Feathers of the world has not stopped the latter from publishing books and raking in money from a public more than willing to entertain speculation and sensationalist claims over scholarly consensus and sound academic research."   Feather doesn't belong in the article. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ^ This. Wholeheartedly agreed. Since you and I both seem to patrol many of the same pages, Doug... You undoubtedly know how common it is for this kind of fringe material to be inserted. I wonder if it's about time that Wikimedia Labs starts hosting some sort of automated bot to search contributions for names that are connected to uncontested WP:FRINGE theories and flags the corresponding edits, much as they already do for likely BLP vandalism. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be both easier and more complicated than that, User:Quinto Simmaco. We use filters to search for vandalism. I don't know if anyone would be willing to add something to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested but I think it might be too complicated, as most names can be used in some contexts, and there are different ways names are expressed, eg "Robert Feather" and "Feather, Robert". WP:FTN would be the place to disucss it. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit filter. Thank you. The familiar term completely escaped me. And yes, you're probably right. While fringe sources can and should be mentioned in some contexts, I was thinking that flagging such edits would allow people to evaluate the weight given to that view in the text. Given that this is one of the major criticisms of Wikipedia (as in its reliability as an academic source, for example), I'm sure the issue has probably been raised and dismissed as either impractical, or otherwise difficult to implement. As you suggest, and I'm sure you're right. I'll search the archives, and make the suggestion if by some chance it hasn't been covered. And/or perhaps ask one of the current or former filter editors who lurk on IRC. Thank you for your answer, Doug. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Feather 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Copper Scroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060505075806/http://faculty.biu.ac.il:80/~barilm/copertx2.html to http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/copertx2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As the replica was started in 2014 is there an update? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facsimile Editions 

message: Would it be reasonable/acceptable to change the entry in the lead from the existing " palaeography (forms of letters)" to  "palaeography (ancient forms of letters)"? I know readers can simply follow the link to palaeography, but I do think that the parenthetical description with the addition of 'ancient' helps the flow of reading the article some.  UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   paleography (just add ancient?)