Talk:William Schniedewind/Archive 1

message: I am dumping this text from the main article as it is not appropriate in its current form. Once this information has been woven into the main article appropriately, with verifiable sources, I will remove this text. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Curriculum Vitae

message: This article about William Schniedewind was authored by his graduate student, Robert Cargill (who later deleted the remark identifying himself in the discussion); its main intent is to call attention to the "virtual reality" film or "Qumran Visualization Project" that the two of them authored together, which is being shown to thousands of visitors at the San Diego Natural History Museum.  The article should either be deleted in relevant portion, or re-written to reflect the fact that the film has been criticized for plagiarizing and distorting the research of a series of major archaeologists.  Schniedewind is a biblical scholar, not a trained archaeologist or historian.  Despite his having "participated in excavations" (no information is given on how or in what capacity he did this), I have been unable to find any legitimate basis for his claim to any type of expertise on the Khirbet Qumran site; yet he appears to have allowed the UCLA press department to orchestrate a campaign that gives the opposite impression (this has now been carefully documented on various websites). Furthermore, the book titles should obviously not be linked to Amazon.com advertisements.  I suggest rewriting the article as follows:
William M. Schniedewind is Professor of Biblical Studies and Northwest Semitic Languages at the University of California, Los Angeles Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures.  He holds the Kershaw Chair of Ancient Mediterranean Studies at that institution.  He earned his Ph.D. from Brandeis University.
Schniedewind is the author of numerous articles and books, including A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture, and Literature (2007); How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (2004); Society and the Promise to David: A Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1-17 (1999); and The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (1995).
P.s. I'm very sorry, but I accidentally saved the above comment in the archived discussion page as well.Critical Reader 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: End of article is advertisement and should be dumped

message: The book titles can be fixed, but the prev., version was the one accepted at AfD with full consensus. A link to a published media account about his work is unexceptionable. If there is  a published statement otherwise, it can be added. As I understand it, biblical studies and archeology overlap, and it is not for us to resolve any dispute between the fields. In short, do not remove sourced material.DGG (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: disagree

message: Whatever conclusions may have been reached in previous discussions, this article clearly needs basic editing.  If you want to provide information on someone, be it your professor or anyone else, at least do it in PLAIN ENGLISH that directly states what you want to say.  The formula proposed by "Critical Reader" is an improvement, but it contains information not supplied by the contributor, and "led to" is still vague, just like "was the inspiration for."  Accordingly, I have simplified and corrected as follows:
In 2006, Schniedewind created the Qumran Visualization Project[1]. His virtual reality film on Khirbet Qumran was shown at the San Diego Natural History Museum's 2007 exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The film and Schniedewind's views on Qumran have been the topic of several newspaper articles.[2]
I have left in the sentence about the excavations and surveys, but it is wierd as written.  Was he a consultant, a surveyor, an excavator? Did he do this after receiving his Ph.D., or while he was an M.A. student at the Holy Land University? He is not an archaeologist or surveyor, so state in what capacity he participated.JX38 21:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: agree

message: I am not sure this article should include references to the "Qumran Visualization Project" or to the news item by Heather Whipps.  It has been alleged that the Whipps item is part of a sensationalist press campaign organized by Schniedewind and his grad student Robert Cargill, aimed at characterizing Cargill and Schniedewind as having discovered "evidence" that was in fact discovered several years ago by a group of scholars who are not mentioned in the UCLA news releases being distributed to the press. What is more, it has been alleged that through that press campaign, as well as throught the "Qumran Visualization Project" itself, Cargill and Schniedewind have intentionally set out to distort or belittle the significance of the discoveries in question so as to impugn the reputation of the scholars concerned.  This conduct appears on its face to be unethical by current scholarly and/or journalistic standards, even if technically speaking it does not amount to plagiarism per se.  Wikipedia should think again about allowing someone to promote such conduct in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk • contribs) 
:If you think it is unduly promoting something, in that it is not neutral, you may remove it. You may also add these accusations, as long as you have credible sources that have made them. i said 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and, needless to say, those who think it is neutral may add it back,and in the end a compromise reached through discussion here will be necessary. But negative comments about any individual must be sourced to be inserted in WP -- sourced to reliable published third party sources. This is one of the basic rules, WP:BLP, and this aspect of it is not subject to compromise.  It might be well to show the sources here first. DGG (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: Schniedewind's ties with Christian fundamentalist organizations should be made explicit, so as to allow the reader to situate him in the current cultural context.  They are described in detail on the Nowpublic site at http://www.nowpublic.com/node/582470
He is on the board of advisors of the Holy Land University; he received his M.A. from the Institute of the Holy Land.  The Faith Statements and "academic profiles" of these institutions make it clear that they (as well as George Fox where he did his undergraduate work) espouse Christ-centered philosophies described in wikipedia's article on Fundamentalist Christianity (this is particularly the case with the Institute of the Holy Land).  I have inserted explanatory links to the website statements of these places.  I did not footnote the Nowpublic article, because I am not sure if it meets wikipedia's standard for reliability (although I believe it does, because all of the factual information it contains appears to be carefully documented).Critical Reader 00:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed them, as I fail to see why they are relevant. If you can show why it matters to this article that those orginizations "espouse Christian fundamentalist beliefs", and can say it neutrally, then it should be included. But as of now, I fail to see why it should be mentioned. i said 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The difference is that the fact that he got degress from a Christian/Quaker university does not particularly matter; there is a link to the universities and as such there is no need to mention that they "espouse Christian fundamentalist beliefs" or are Christ-centered. If they wish to know the nature of the university, they may check out their article. If the fact that they are Christian Universities as opposed to anything else mattered, then it could be included. But I see no evidence to suggest that it matters. i said 03:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you had sources that discussed this controversy, specifically Schniedewind's role in it, it might merit inclusion. If you could find sources, in addition to the ones already mentioned, I'd like to see them. i said 06:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ties with Christian fundamentalist organizations

message: This is a RL carryover, and if you'll check the other pages CRITICAL READER has touched, they are all locked down:  Dead Sea Scrolls,  San Diego Natural History Museum,  Norman Golb. Now he's after William Schniedewind.  Why don't I just request that William Schniedewind's page be locked now, prior to CRITICAL READER's edits, but post-AFD 'KEEP' results.  This will save us all a lot of trouble. 'I', can you do that?  Other admins?  Can any of you place a lock on this page please? Thank you. IsraelXKV8R 07:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its called protecting, not locking down, just so you know. Secondly, to protect a page, it needs to be in a revert war and/or under a content dispute. This page is not, since there has been no warring, and Critical Reader has done the correct thing in bringing it here. As for the edits, like I said before, if it is sourced, then it can and should be included, regardless if it's a spillover from RL. i said 07:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  So we wait.  Hopefully no edit war on Bill's page. If there is, I'll be back. And thanx for the clarification on lock vs. protect.  I'm still very new on the rules/terminology.  Also, I tried to email you on your user page, but your 'email me' appears to not work.  Email me if you'd like.  It's on my user page. IsraelXKV8R 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I undid anonymous additions, here's why: 

message: This material (the entire second-to-last paragraph of the article) concerns a project for which Robert Cargill, who is the author of the article and Dr. Schniedewind's student, was paid $100,000 by the San Diego Natural History Museum and the Righteous Persons Foundation (as explained by Robert Cargill himself on his homepage).  Cargill is in fact using this paragraph of the article to promote his own achievement (Cargill's role in the project is also sourced in all the news accounts that he lists on his homepage).  It seems to me that this alone should be grounds for eliminating the paragraph in question, even though, by leaving his name out, Cargill gives the appearance of writing solely about someone else who just happens to be his professor.Critical Reader 18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't promotion. Its neutral, and sourced. i said 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, technically speaking, the original author of this article is not the subject. And while it is discouraged, people with conflict of interest may edit articles, as long as it in neutral. And finally, yes, if it's sourced, and relevant it can be in here. i said 00:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You should probably move away from Cargill, because although he is the original author of this page, he does not own the page. He needs to do nothing for this page. Mentioning of the controversy surrounding the exhibit is appropriate, so long as it is not given undue weight, is neutral and sourced. i said 03:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Qumran project material promotes workproduct of the article's author; should it be in article? 

message: The paragraph that claims Schniedewind participated in archaeological excavations in Israel is unsourced.  There is no way of ascertaining the veracity of the information it contains.  Please have Mr. Cargill source the paragraph or delete it.Critical Reader 22:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final paragraph of article is unsourced 

message: Things seem to be taking a rather absurd turn.  Schniedewind's involvement with a Christian fundamentalist "educational institution" is revealed, and he responds by padding the resume with trivialities--his positions on steering committees, etc.
Note that all of the four positions added by Cargill for Schniedewind are mentioned on Schniedewind's UCLA faculty page, but his position as an advisor and adjunct faculty member with the University of the Holy Land is NOT mentioned on his UCLA faculty page.  This, of course, is because his involvement with a Christian fundamentalist institution would be an embarrassment for him were it to appear on his faculty page.
If wikipedia wishes to permit Dr. Schniedewind to present himself as a respectable scholar, without informing readers of his fundamentalist ties or mentioning that his Christ-centered work on Qumran has been subjected to harsh criticism by a major Jewish historian, so be it.  But word has a way of getting out, and ultimately this will be an embarrassment for wikipedia as well which, in my view at least, is not good.Critical Reader 01:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop discussing Schniedewind or Cargill's relation to this article. Schniedewind did not write this article, and Cargill should probably refrain from further editing anything contentious about this page. Secondly, you may introduce controversy about Schniedewind, but if it is only related to the exhibit, make sure that unless Schniedewind specifically is a key figure in the controversy. In the article by Golb, I saw no criticism of Schniedewind specifically, more of the exhibit itself. You may make changes as you see fit, but be prepared for the possibility that they will be removed by users who disagree. If/when that happens, bring the specific disputed content here to be discussed. i said 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok. I would suggest that you put mention of the controversy in the article. Try to be neutral about it, and source it. It might be best if you cite more than just that one article. i said 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And if someone removes it I shall restore it. It is a good inclusion. You can say more specifically what the dispute is about, vis à vis Schniedewind's involvement. Make sure that if you do so, that it is obvious how Schniedewind specifically is controversial. i said 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an encyclopaedia article or a curriculum vitae?