Talk:Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

message: I noticed ≈ jossi ≈ added back one of the book cover images.  I don't really mind two iamges, but the way it was before with the 5+ FU images was an NFCC issue.  Mbisanz (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I wish to request that the photograph inserted into the "reviews" section of this article be deleted as redundant.  
Please note: there have been a series of heated exchanged about Norman Golb, the author of the book that is the subject of this article, on several talk pages.  The editor who keeps inserting this photo has explicitly admitted to having "opinions" about Golb, and to "throwing oil on the flames" with one of his comments in that regard.  He has also implied that he wishes to include this photo because it reveals something negative about the book in question.
Unfortunately, we have discussed this without reaching an agreement.
Since I believe the intent of singling out this photo and including it in this section of the article is defamatory, the photo should either be removed until we can reach an agreement, or it should be included along with other photos to illustrate the "History of Publication" section of the article, as I had done before until another editor, Eric, removed (in my view appropriately) all of the photos (see history).Critical Reader (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will only say that the second book cover does not meet the criteria for fair use.  There needs to be critical commentary of that item -- not its content, but the image itself.  Since the page is fully protected, I would advise both of you to review dispute resolution.  I came here through WT:NFC, and I've left a note at that talk page for other editors to come here and address the second book cover.  Hopefully by that time, matters between the editors here will be resolved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I understand the FU issue, but the argument is that the cover of the softcover edition is notable. I will see if there is any information published about that cover. If I do not find any, one image will suffice. In regard of  that  I have opinions on the subject, it should be noted that this user is an single purpose account that most definitively has very strong opinions on the subject editing exclusively on subjects related to the author of this book. Having opinions is not an issue, as we all do have opinions. Having too strong opinions that compromise NPOV by putting our POVs ahead of the aims of the project, most certainly is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the second book cover notable?  The critical commentary needs to be directed at the cover itself, not the content.  Are you saying that there is information out there about the particular design of the book cover?  If the content of this book is relevant but not the cover itself, then the cover does not help the reader significantly per #8 of WP:NFC#Policy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because being a book about the Dead Scrolls, it depicts a scroll upside down. This may have been the book designer's mistake, but it does not seem to have been pulled out of circulation. As said before, if we cannot find a source that describes this, we should only have one book cover in the article as per WP:NFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I will resist attempts of others to do so to further an agenda based on their personal opinions about "who is right." Resisting attempts says it all, as you fail to see that it is you that have a strong opinion on the subject, and that is obvious from your edits and your comments. As for the book cover being notable or not, as I said, I will check if there are any comments about the mistake in the cover. If there aren't any, we should delete it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, we need to delete it now, and then if you find some source perhaps we can put it back in at an appropriate spot, if you can get such a source in without violating the NPOV and undue weight principles.  My "strong opinion" is that the subject should be presented in a neutral manner on wikipedia  Your opinion is of a different class, as your own admissions ("pouring oil on the fire") show.Critical Reader (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how you can explain this without implying a defamatory intent. How can a book cover of a book that is in wide circulation be defamatory? If it is, go and file a complaint at http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Dead-Sea-Scrolls/dp/0684806924 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. There is no false claim, implied or factual. There is such a book cover as depicted in the article, and is the book cover that all purchasers of that book will see when they order that book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not furthering any such goals. I am taking these articles off my whatchlist for a week or so. I had enough of your silly accusations, your demeanor in these pages and your overall attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book cover(s) 

message: I haven't the time and inclination to parse through this page's discussion re: the scrolls. Reading the article, I'm left wondering exactly what the book and the Wikipedia article are trying to say. The only real dscription of the book, other than the table of contents, is a line saying the scrolls may have been written in Jerusalem and moved to Qumran. Now, I'm left with the question "so what?". It only matters who wrote them, not where. Does the book challenge the idea that the Essenes wrote them? If so, say so. Does it speculate on other possible authors? If so, who?
I suspect there would not be nearly as much dispute about the article if the Wikipedia piece simply talked about the book's theories and had a few good reviews. If you want to review the book yourselves (positively or negatively) or praise or trash the author, do so and submit your articles to a peer-reviewed journal. Good luck. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: 203.214.85.254 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Sea Scrolls