Talk:William Schniedewind

message: Someone mistakenly credited the subject with the creation of a film that he did not produce.  I removed the mistaken information.  For more information about the film's creator, see the film's credits.  IsraelXKV8R 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Wikipedia  is not the place to make claims that have not been made in secondary published sources. In this article, particularly as it refers to a living person we have to stay as close to the sources as possible, describe significant viewpoints (including the ones made by the subject) and attribute them to these that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed misattributed film information. 

message: He is listed on their website, both as adjunct professor and as serving on their Board of Advisors, this is sourced precisely through the link provided.  I don't see how Mr. Cargill can simply deny these important facts, so to speak, ex cathedra.  Is Mr. Cargill trying to say that Schniedewind once served, but no longer serves, i.e., that the information is out of date? If so, then we should simply put the present perfect "has served" instead of the present tense.  In the meantime, I have undone Mr. Cargill's deletion of this information.  P.s. I have been politely waiting for a reply from Mr. Cargill before returning to the issue of the film project.Critical Reader 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to University of Holy Land website, Schniedewind DOES serve on their Board of Advisors 

message: Please read this carefully and try to understand what the policy means (my highlights):
;Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.  However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources.
Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.
;Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties;
* it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
* the article is not based primarily on such sources.
The only argument you are making about "self-serving", was related to the Qumran Visualization website, which we have already addressed with our last edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:V on Self published sources 

message: He has changed the sentence back to its original form, justifying this with the assertion that Schniedewind did not create the Qumran Visualization Project webpage.  If Schniedewind did not create that webpage, then it would appear that Robert Cargill created it.  So the sentence should read: "The Qumran Visualization webpage, created by a student of Dr. Schniedewind's under the auspices of UCLA, states that Schniedewind has participated in excavations..."Critical Reader 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "Critical Reader".  There is no excuse for allowing Mr. Cargill, the student and collaborator of the article's subject, to control the editing of the article.  Conflict of interest.  The sentence should be kept as Reader and Jossi had agreed until the matter is resolved in discussion.  I have modified by inserting term "student."  If Cargill has more specific information on who created the webpage, he should come forward with it here in the discussion so the sentence can be improved.216.165.95.64 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No one can "control" an article, this is after all a wiki. Yes, Mr. Cargill and Mr. Gadda are strongly discouraged to edit this article directly.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Cargill has now again edited the article, despite his conflict of interest 

message: I had hoped this would alleviate the need for further edits.  I previously had removed any reference to the Qumran Visualization Project.  Then, for some reason, it reappeared.  It's gone again.  We good? IsraelXKV8R 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly suggest both you and Mr. Gadda to refrain from editing this and related articles directly, if you are unable to edit within the constrains imposed by our content policies. Deletion of well sourced material is considered vandalism, and addition of material that is poorly sourced to biographies of living people is considered disruptive, both of which may result in the loss of your editing privileges if recurring . A safer approach would be to submit your proposals or additions and deletions in this talk page instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  I shall revert my last reversion.  I am fine with the mention of the QVP being removed, since that is my work.  I removed the mention of the QVP earlier.  If you would remove it again, I'd be grateful.  There is no reason I should be mentioned on subject's page.  That should end the controversy, since there will be no mention of the QVP, there should be no reason those critical of the Schniedewind to continue to edit his page.  Beseder?  IsraelXKV8R 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  lo beseder... The fact that this person is mentioned in relation to that exhibit is encyclopedic. We just need to find a neutral way to present that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok. but, the way it is written now is a) wordy, and b) the footnote shows where the info is coming from.  why repeat it in the article?IsraelXKV8R 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again... I have removed the reference to the QVP 

message: It doesn't give us any idea whatsoever of what kind of contribution (if any) this guy has made to scholarship.  What is his originality? What theories does he defend? Not a word about any of that! Instead, we learn that he serves on a steering committee! WHO CARES??
Next, we read:
"An article in The Christian Century, refers to Schniedewind as having demonstrated in his book How the Bible Became a Book, his knowledge of the archaeology of ancient Israel, the history of the Hebrew language, and the development historical literature based on the Bible."
In other words, the "Christian Century" says this subject has "demonstrated his knowledge" of his field of study.  Show me a scholar who hasn't "demonstrated his knowledge"! 
Even though it's not linked, I went and found the piece on the "Christian Century" site, hoping to learn something more about the subject.  What do I find? That some of the subject's views are "controversial" and "not convincing."  Is that mentioned in this article? Of course not!
Then we read that the subject is "listed" in something called "Distinguished Lecture Series Speakers Biographies."  So I go look at that too, and what do I find? Subject gives popular lecture at museum; museum advertises lecture by calling subject "distinguished."  And this is supposed to be notable! Who wrote this, a high school student? "My teacher is distinguished, a museum said so!"
Finally, I see in the subject's list of publications, in the "archived" discussion material, a listing entitled "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage."  Hopefully "Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage"'s contents are not as ridiculous as its title--no wonder the "Christian Century" said "controversial" and "not convincing"!
Does "Jossi" deal with any of this? Of course not! Instead, he slugs it out with the "Critical Reader" guy! Incidentally, we also learn that the article's subject is a UCLA professor who has been teaching at the "University of the Holy Land"! Does the article say a word about that? Of course not, it would violate wikipedia's standards! What about UCLA's standards?
This article is an embarrassment to its own subject, to say nothing of wikipedia's desire to present itself as a serious source of "collectively authored" information.  The subject should be given the opportunity to start from scratch and write a new article himself, explaining in simple words (hopefully without "antilanguage"!) what his contribution to scholarship is, where he has taught, and why he is a notable figure.128.122.89.183 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I hope you don't hold me responsible for any of the article's contents--I have focused only on one narrow aspect of it.  But for what it is worth, it seems to me that you might wish to query whether the article is intended to provide any serious info on its subject.  I don't have the answer to this, but the question seems to result from everything that has been said.Critical Reader 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A note: All the anonymous editors above, are all from New York University as per WHOIS. This refers to , , and , so will take these to be the same person. I would suggest you get a user account if you intend to contribute in an ongoing manner. Also note that a checkuser process enables us to see if one editor is using multiple accounts/IP addresses to make edits. Having said that and in response to comments above, I would say this: this article as it stands is well sourced and neutral. I say this on the basis of my experience in editing hundreds of biographies and in being actively involved in the biographies of living people noticeboard. If you disagree, you can pursue our dispute resolution process, as I do not intend to spend all my wiki time in responding to the same arguments again and again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, some people in the academic community do not like what Wikipedia is, how it works, and have issues with non-scholars writing an encyclopedia. See Criticism of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:MEAT ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would argue that Wikipedia is not the forum for scholarly disputes. There is other more suitable fora for scholarly debates, such as publishing a peer-reviewed article in which assertions and challenges to Schniedewind and Cagill's theories, exhibits, etc. can be made. In Wikipedia we only present what reliable sources (such as scholarly articles) say about a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not assisting anyone in engaging in unethical conduct. The article was initially edited by a person with a conflict of interest, which is discouraged but not forbidden. Then another person (Mr. Gadda) who also has a conflict of interest edited the article as well. I have advised both not to edit the article directly, unless they can abide 100% by our content policies. The article as it stands now is appropriate, and if you disagree with its contents, please pursue dispute resolution. Please do not repeat the same arguments again and again as these will be not replied to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no policy in Wikipedia that prohibits editing with a conflict of interest (See WP:COI), although it is strongly discouraged. The original article has changed considerably since its creation, as you can see here, so it is not an issue anymore. There is no such "remedial action" that needs to be taken. I would suggest you move on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your ethics argument is plainly a formal fallacy (non sequitur). An ethical approach does not require self-authorship. On the contrary, self-authorship is perilous with ethical concerns regarding bias, accuracy and service to readers. Additionally, our policy governing "biographical" articles is quite strict and well-within the bounds of conventional ethics. Please move forward and stop belaboring the point. If you feel there's something specific wrong with the article, please present those individual points rationally and politely for discussion. Problems brought up can be addressed and corrected. Vassyana 18:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone should look at this article 

message: Having reviewed the discussion above and compared it with the text of the article in the context of ongoing debates, I have concluded that the article is not neutral.  I have corrected accordingly.  It should be noted that the review of QVP's work-product that I've linked is not self-published, it is published by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, just as QVP's linked website is published by UCLA.Phillip Kirby (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have missed this above, If that is the case, that may be a good source for the article about Norman Golb, as per [WP:SPS]], but not for this article. SPS reads: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not re-add materials from self-published sources.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not personally motivated, I have no dog in this fight, unlike seemingly you. Please read WP:SPS. The document you have used is a self-published document by the author. We can use self-published sources only on the article about the person, and not to be used to make claims about third parties. Put the text again, and you will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a third party. I could see that the PDF of Norman Golb, was hosted on that site, but was unable able to find any page on that website that referred to that document. I see you have provided it now. The source can be used, provided it is attributed to this person (Norman Golb), and not asserted as a fact, but as an opinion. I have re-added the source, with proper attribution. It seems that it is the usual one scholar against another's argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems, from what I am reading (see Norman Golb), that Golb has viewpoints and theories which are not shared by other scholars that study the subject, and that there is quite a bit of "back and forth" between these sides (to put it mildly). I have seen this a lot in academia, but seldom seen a paper in which one calls the other "blatantly misleading". Oh well... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We can explore the controversy at the article on Norman Golb. In this article, we should only have a sentence or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, better, we can explore the subject at Qumran, which already touches on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have corrected article to make it neutral 

message: Jossi,
What is Dr. Golb's position on the Dead Sea Scrolls doing being discussed on Dr. Schniedewind's page?  Wouldn't it be more appropriate on Dr. Golb's page?  I certainly do not see paragraphs mentioning all of scholars that disagree with Dr. Golb on Dr. Golb's page.  I mean, I guess I could discuss Dr. Jodi Magness' opposition to Dr. Golb's position on Dr. Golb's page, and then follow it with a few comments from published articles from Dr. Hanan Eshel, then a paragraph about  Jean-Baptiste Humbert's disagreement, then one from Dr. Stephen Pfann, then Dr. Emmanuel Tov, etc. etc., but I personally don't feel that wouldn't be appropriate for Dr. Golb's page.  Even though he's not an archaeologist, he is an established historian, whom I believe has done some credible research, especially with regard to the different scribal hands in the DSS and, of course, we agree that the site of Qumran was established as a fortress.  But even though I do not agree with some of Dr. Golb's conclusions, I'm not going to trash him anonymously or attempt to make him look like any less of a scholar, especially on his own page.
I guess I'm just asking for some clarification.  I want to be consistent.  Should we allow all of the anonymous IP addresses that support Dr. Golb to critique Dr. Schniedewind on Dr. Schniedewind's page?  If so, are others then free to critique Dr. Golb on his page, linking to and citing articles that disagree with Dr. Golb's positions?  If Dr. Schniedewind's page is going to link to someone who disagrees with him, then Dr. Golb's page should allow for paragraphs talking about each of the scholars who disagree with him.
Of course, I don't want any of this.  Quite personally, I'm tired of checking Dr. Schniedewind's page, only to see that his page has been edited by those who have confessed open opposition to his scholastic opinions. It gets old.  I have never touched Dr. Golb's page, nor do I want to.  I respect him, and don't really like all of this back and forth.  Scholarly debate should take place in peer-reviewed journals and at academic sessions like ASOR, AAR, and SBL, not as anonymous postings to other scholars' wikipedia pages.  I just ask the same courtesy be extended to Dr. Schniedewind that is being extended to Dr. Golb.  Wiki articles should not be a place to trash others and their academic positions.  They should be a place to state basic information about things, events, and people.
I guess I'm asking: what are the ground rules here?  Should we add to Dr. Golb's page information about all those who disagree with him?  Or, should we remove the pro-Golb edits from Dr. Schniedewind's page?  Can we all agree to allow Dr. Golb's positions to be promoted on his page, and let Dr. Schniedewind's positions be stated on his page?  How should we proceed?
And a few notes:
1) The best place for this 'debate' to take place is the Qumran page.  But as you can see, I listed all of the alternative theories (and linked to their sources) months ago.  That is the best place to discuss the competing views, not Dr. Schniedewind's or Dr. Golb's page.  Can we agree upon that?
2) Dr. Schniedewind had nothing to do with the movie.  I made it (check the credits).  The review therefore has nothing to do with Dr. Schniedewind and should not appear on his page for that reason alone.  The fact that Dr. Schniedewind is never mentioned by name in Dr. Golb's .pdf review should be evidence enough of this fact.
3) You are right to point out that Magen and Peleg never cite Norman Golb a single time in their preliminary report, even though they do subscribe to a Jerusalem origin theory of the DSS and the initial fortress theory, both of which are positions held by Dr. Golb.  Magen and Peleg ultimately conclude differently than Dr. Golb (they believe the fortress was later converted to a pottery factory).  Again, while Magen and Peleg hold two positions similar to Dr. Golb, they do not credit him for either of those suggestions.
Again, I'm not one to write much on this, nor do I ever respond to anonymous folks, so apologies in advance if I don't reply in a timely manner or at all to some or all comments.
Thanx Jossi.  IsraelXKV8R (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best to keep the scholarly disputes out of the biographical articles of Schniedewind and Golb altogether. These disputes can be explored and described at Qumran. Unless there are objections to this approach I will put this in effect on Monday. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the back and forth? 

message: Jossi,
(1) If the views of a public figure, or a widely viewed media product produced under that figure's direction, are the object of controversy or debate, it is perfectly appropriate to mention it in an article about that figure.  The "Virtual Qumran" film, produced by the Virtual Qumran Project which Dr. Schniedewind directs, has been projected to an estimated 450,000 people in a six-million-dollar public exhibit, and will soon be available to many more; so it certainly seems important to mention Dr Golb's review here.  
(2) However, the statement mentioning the controversy must be (a) sourced, (b) kept brief (just as you said above: "only a sentence or two") and (c) neutral.  
(3) The portion of the sentence quoting Golb on the museum exhibit should be dropped; it is irrelevant to the film produced by the Virtual Qumran Project.
(4) Bob Cargill's retaliatory straw-man argument about sourcing a range of traditional scroll scholars in the Golb article is unfounded: that wouldn't be keeping it brief and neutral at all.  The Golb article as it stands explains that there is a controversy, in a perfectly appropriate manner.  
(5) This being said, the sentence in this article about Dr. Schniedewind:
Other sources describe Golb's theories as going against scholarly consensus, as being the subject of a "lively debate" in Qumran studies," or as giving rise to a "tide of revisionist thinking,"
summarizes information from the article on Norman Golb and one wonders what it is doing here.  Better would be a sentence like "other sources review the film favorably."  I don't know where to look for such a source, but if Bob can find one it seems to me he should submit it.  Then you would have an informative, neutral and appropriately brief paragraph reflecting the difference of opinion about the work-product of the project directed by Dr. Schniedewind.
(6) That Bob Cargill, who is Dr. Schniedewind's student, "made" the movie is besides the point.  The film is known to convey Dr. Schniedewind's views about Qumran, as is clear from Schniedewind's role as director of the project, from the UCLA press release on the matter, and from the abundant number of newspaper articles in which Schniedewind and Cargill are interviewed together about the project.  I can give sources if you like.
 
(7) Bob Cargill insists that he is the one who "made" the film, and this gives rise to an important conflict-of-interest issue that I feel obliged to address.  Golb's review of the film raises an ethical question about a marginal statement in Mr. Cargill's film script which appears to refer to a secret policy of which no trace can be left in writing (see pp. 6-7 of the review).  If, in the course of the review, a question has been raised as to whether Mr. Cargill, with Dr. Schniedewind's collaboration, engaged in ethical misconduct in the course of making the film (I am not saying he did, but this would certainly seem to be one implication of the question raised by Golb), then one must wonder why Mr. Cargill is trying to keep this source from being cited in a wikipedia article about the director of the Virtual Qumran project.  The conflict of interest would be quite flagrant, and would certainly require some explanation.
(8) Finally, Bob Cargill says: "You are right to point out that Magen and Peleg never cite Norman Golb a single time in their preliminary report."  I will say something about this in the Norman Golb discussion, but since Bob raises the issue here (where it is irrelevant), I repeat my basic points on that here: That Magen and Peleg never cite Golb by name is irrelevant, the theory they propose (that Qumran was a secular site and that the scrolls came from the Jerusalem region and were not written by any single sect within ancient Judaism) is almost exactly the same as Golb's theory.  In fact, the New York Times article about Magen and Peleg specifically quotes Golb as saying that the site may indeed have been used as a pottery factory.  Thus, the "difference" Bob highlights between Magen/Peleg and Golb is insignificant. (See the Norman Golb discussion for a few more points on this.).David Saunderfeld (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry guys ... Wikipedia is not a battleground for ideas. You can take these disputes to the scholarly realm, and not expect Wikipedia to be the forum for resolving your differences. As a third-party with no dog in this fight, I would encourage you and others to leave all the positioning of your scholarly disputes to the article on Qumran where it can be explored alongside other viewpoints, leaving this and Golb's article for biographical info only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think a few points should be made here