Talk:San Diego Natural History Museum

message: 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)
thread_title: Including museum criticism

message: 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)
thread_title: Newest Exhibit – Dead Sea Scrolls

message: 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)
thread_title: One Scholar Dissents

message: 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)
thread_title: Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit

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

message: 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#Some_friendly_advice_to_Critical_Reader  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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#undue and contains references to blogs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  so fix it. If there are weasel words, these can be easily changed to more neutral ones, and as I said above please try  Wikipedia: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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  I started the stub at William Templeton Johnson. You are welcome to add and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Blogs are not reliable sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Controversy" 

message: Here is what the sources you provided say (my highlights): Los Angeles TimesM. Boehm,   and San Diego Union-Tribune.S. Dolbee,    
and
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR our three main content policies work together. You cannot compromise one at the expense of another. Read what these policy pages say in their lede: NPOV, V, and NOR are Wikipedia's three principal content policies. Since NPOV, V, and NOR complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. Staying close to the sources without editorializing serves V, NPOV and NOR simultaneously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You write as if I am interested in "defending" a museum. I am not. Whatever the sources say we describe without editorializing or cherry-picking. If the museum writes that the scrolls were written by aliens, we report that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. You cannot use that material as it is an un-published script, and and it relates to a living person . I am still not sure these articles in the Chicago University website are not self published.  See what WP:V says: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability. Given the contention, I would argue that a single source does not pass the threshold for inclusion: as per BLP (my highlight): Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.. And finally, read WP:REDFLAG, which I think is very applicable here. If Golb says that the scrolls were written by aliens, we will surely report that; but if he says that living person X is an alien, we do not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:BLP was designed to protect living people, not  just private people. Please read the policy. One argument that has not been repeated in any other sources, and which is highly contentions as per your wording "an unethical policy of secrecy" cannot be added to an article in Wikipedia. You can make an inquiry at the BLP noticeboard if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the use of your "an unethical policy of secrecy" as an allegation made by a single person, describing an unpublished script of the film, I will place a Request for comment so that fellow Wikipedians can weigh-in on this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

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