Talk:Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour

message: The source does not support the statement. The source says "Support to bring the Dead Sea Scrolls to San Diego, with specific funding for a virtual presentation of Qumran, the site where the Scrolls were found. $100,000. San Diego, CA." Please stay close to the sources and re-add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just asking to stay close to the source and not mis-represent them. The way it reads does not seem to be the way you wrote it. It is not clear. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I disagree with your addition about Golb.  That information is available in the Qumran article, where you got it from.  It is irrelevant to the question of the film on which this article is focused, and it confuses the topic here.  This article is not about Norman Golb, it's about this film.  Instead, we should insert a sentence saying "For further information on Dr. Golb's role in Dead Sea Scrolls research and the Qumran controversy, see the article on Qumran."Jacob Stein (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that is important material. Golb asserts that scholarly opinion is overwhelmingly on his side, when that is actually disputed. We need that rebuttal for context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is a dispute, it needs to be properly framed. This article is not about Golb's opinion of the film. If you want that material in the article (Golb's review), it needs to be accompanied with text that describes the dispute. See WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So, we can have this version, or this version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Then, lets keep this version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golb insert 

message: A statement made in an edit, refers to a script of the film. I read that the film is silent. Has the a script of the film been published? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... If there is no script, how can someone quote a script? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I am not implying that... god forbid. Just curious about it. When was Golb's article published? It does not have a date in the website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script 

message: : I read Golb's article again, and it is evident that the review is of the script and not of the film. I have corrected this in the article's text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script, not film 

message: The first statement by Golb is on pp. 1-2 of his article.  The second is on p. 6.  I don't know how to insert page numbers into footnotes.Jacob Stein (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will added these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I object to this citation.  You're padding the article with quotations that themselves misinform the public.  Only a small number of scrolls, and nowhere near 30% of the 900 found, mention a "yahad" group.  Traditional scrolls scholars theorize that many of the scrolls were written by the group referred to in that small number, and the result is a sentence like this that entirely misinforms readers.Jacob Stein (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia we only inform readers of what has been published. See Verifiability.  That source says that, and that is verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long citation in footnote 

message: I also object to this photograph, which I find vulgar and which in my opinion amounts to an advertisement for the film and its author.  Incidentally, are you a friend of Robert Cargill? Forgive me for saying this, but it seems like he is feeding you material to use in this article.  At any rate, if you insist on including a photograph, I would recommend using one of Cargill and Schniedewind together, there are many of them on-line in the news items.Jacob Stein (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo is of the director and author of the film, Why not to use it? You started the article, not me, so please do not complain about me expanding the article so that it describes the subject properly. And no, I am not a friend of Robert Cargill, never met him. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Now, some questions for you: Do you have you a personal animosity against the author or the film? Are you related in any way or manner to Norman Golb? Are you in any way or manner related to User:Critical Reader, User:Philip Kirby, Harold Milton, and other such users editing these articles? Should I request another WP:SSP on these accounts? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The photo I used is in the public domain. If you can find a photo of the two scholars together, that is in the public domain, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I replied above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an article about the film and as such the majority of the material needs to be about it. The review of the script of the film by one person, which is unique in its contents and which has not been referred, cited or mentioned, by no other expert in the field, should only be mentioned as a short summary, if at all. You are welcome to add text to the footnotes, if that text helps with verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The footnote can be removed. Several questions remains unanswered: Why is that Golb's article not mentioned anywhere?  Why is that no one of the scholars that study the subject have joined Golb in in the critique of the script or film? Why has not the media picked up this story?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. We have a case of undue weight here. There are exactly four URIs that mention that article in Google. One is the article itself, two are from pages that hosts the article in the Chicago University's site, and the other one from a blog. I looked in published Journals archives, news archives, and other databases and found nothing. OTOH, you can find about 400 links all very much alike, most of them blog posts, or comments to media articles, in which Golb's review is mentioned, such a this, this, and this. That solidifies my artgument that we have a very obvious case of undue weight.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I already said to you that I am not a friend of any of the protagonists. Also note that I have no authority in this article: yes, I am an administrator of Wikipedia, but I cannot exercise any of my admin privileges in articles in which I am actively editing. I reading some of the blogs and comments to these blog posts, I now see that there is a vigorous (may I say vicious) debate about Golb's views on this film in the interwebs. One think I do intend to do is not to allow the animosity of that debate to spill into Wikipedia: I have seen it before in other articles about which there are strong POVs at play: it does not end up well if you let it fester. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not protect that article, check its history. When I intervened at the San Diego Natural History Museum I was not actively editing any of these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The San Diego Natural History Museum is not protected, and I did not protect it. I will not respond to ad hominems and I advice you to read our policy on civility. Any further such comments, will be reported for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: I have asked for editors participants in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East to assist with this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help requested 

message: :Image:Virtual Qumran.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use rationale has been provided. The owner of bot that placed that tag has been informed of the mistakes is making. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Virtual Qumran.jpg

message: The photograph of Robert Cargill should be deleted--it has nothing to do with the "reception" of the film, but is rather intended to advertise the film and to promote the film's author.  The endearing, smiling photo implies that the film's "reception" has been favorable, which apparently is not the case.  The proper place for this photo is on Mr. Cargill's personal userpage, where Jossi lifted it from.Critical Reader (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop, this is becoming ridiculous. The article is about a film created by that person, and a photo that is in the public domain, can be certainly used in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Find an alternative photo, that is in the public domain, and I will not oppose replacing the current photo if it is better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not delete the photo again, unless you find an alternative photo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have as much authority as needed to remove vandalism from articles and deletions that are vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not cross post. I have replied your comment at Talk:Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29 where it can be followed up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for photo of Robert Cargill

message: There is no need to put criticism in separate sections. That is deprecated. For NPOV we place all reviews, and viewpoints positive, negative, and neutral together. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Review section may be OK, but your last statement in that section cannot be used as it violates WP:NOR as we do not know If there is one review or 200 hundreds. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Moved to summary. Now please help and expand the Reception and Summary sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: There is absolutely no good reason for deleting the paragraph on this review.  The grounds offered (that the review was not "peer reviewed" and that it's written by someone who has a different POV) are absurd.  The review is entirely valid per wikipedia rules and if it's not mentioned this entire article becomes an advertisement for the film rather than a neutral encyclopedia article.Bobberhelp (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:SPS for information on how to treat such sources. If you can find some sources that cites from Golb's review, that we can include it. I have not found such sources, but if you do please post them here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Golb review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ancient Qumran: A Virtual Reality Tour. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080112092440/http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/about.html to http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/about.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605115952/http://www.international.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=72510 to http://www.international.ucla.edu/print.asp?parentid=72510
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229114031/http://www.righteouspersons.org/grants/archive.php?pageID=2 to http://www.righteouspersons.org/grants/archive.php?pageID=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013012102/http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/ to http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/qumran/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified