Talk:Copper Scroll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pictures[edit]

This article could really use some pictures - or at least links to pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.74.109 (talk) 21:23, 2005 September 27 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this thawt re providing pix on the page in question (not just links). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reformatikos (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2006 November 8 (UTC)

Unnecessary opening statements[edit]

Since someone has eliminated the separation from the opening statements, it is better to lose them altogether. The attribution to "Henry de Contention" or whomever, leading the Bedouins, is from a very tenuous source. The statement "it was likely written by the Essenes" is completely unsubstantiated. Sorry, but that's the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephconklin (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2005 October 18 (UTC)

That's Henri de Contenson, who did work in Cave 3. As for the proposed Essene ownership of 3Q15, such is the published view of, among others, Andre Dupont-Sommer. Stephen Goranson, Emile Puech. Coralapus (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

Unsubstantiated paragraph[edit]

Paragraph on "Ben-Tzion Luria" is completely unsubstantiated, on Wiki and via web search. Recommend to delete within 14 days unless some documentation is offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephconklin (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2006 May 29 (UTC)

Deleted the above-mentioned paragraph. There was no Third Temple and "some scholars" is not substantiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephconklin (talk • contribs) 04:01, 2006 June 18 (UTC)

What's this, no Third Temple? There was Solomon's (1st); there was Nehemiah's (2nd); and there was Herod's (3rd). There definitely was a third temple in Jerusalem and it was served by Levites (the tribal name of the priestly caste). So the statement given as an argument for deletion of the Luria paragraph (which I have never seen) is in an important challenged detail simply counter-factual. - Reformatikos
As to Luria, I'm guessing (and only guessing) that this is a relatively early Kabbalistic writer. I don't know enuff about him either way to say whether the paragraph in question should have been removed, but the statement there was no Third Temple is so egregiously erroneous that I wonder about the knowledge of the anti-Lurist. This needs a knowledgeable third-party evaulation from someone without a tendentious sectarian stake in the quarrel. - Reformatikos
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reformatikos (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2006 November 8 (UTC)

The reference: Lurya, Ben-Tsiyon, 1905- Title Megilat ha-nehoshet mi-midbar Yehudah [me-et] B.T. Lurya. Published Yerushalayim, ha-Hevrah le-heker ha-mikra be-Yisrael al yede Kriat Sefer 724 [1963] He dates it later than most.Coralapus (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

Why Wolters title excluded?[edit]

I also find it h+ly questionable that the work of Dr Albert Wolters on the Copper Scroll has not been included in the resources for this article. The Wolters book, at least, should be included in the resources. At the same time, I don't think the Wolters article proper should be merged into this article on the Scrolls. I'm voting to keep unmerged the Wolters article as a separate Wiki article in its own r+t and with its current form largely complete (I will be recommending two minor changes), but to include citation of his work on the Copper Scrolls in the preent article with a link to the Wolters article. - Reformatikos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reformatikos (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2006 November 8 (UTC)

History Channel[edit]

Please do not cite the History Channel when entering new information. To stir up interest, they have paid people to say "interesting" things for the camera. These "interesting" things often have no basis in fact/reality, but is someone's dream/idea. Wonderful for them, lousy for an encyclopedia.

Also, new information is almost going to be completely lacking for this scroll. It is the hardest to make any sense out of. Because of that this article teeters on the verge of turning into an urban myth/hoax/nonsense page. Please do not let it. Resist media attempts to "redefine" the copper scroll. Look for scholarly articles of which there will be very very few. Student7 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with citing the History Channel, as long as it's made clear that's the source. If another scholar disagrees, we can cite that too. Superm401 - Talk 11:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship and new references[edit]

Quote from Wikipedia:

"In scholarship, a reference may be a citation of a text that has been used in the creation of a piece of work such as an essay, report, or oration. Its primary purpose is to allow people who read such work to examine the author's sources, either for validity, or simply to learn more about the subject. Such items are often listed at the end of an article or book in a section marked Bibliography or in a section marked References. A Bibliography section will often contain work not cited by the author, but used as background reading or listed as potentially useful to the reader. A section labelled References should contain all and only work cited in the main text. In some circles the latter is known as the EC250 Rule.

Copying of material by another author without proper citation or without required permissions amounts to 'plagiarism'."

Adding books that were not used in the preparation of this document seems to be allowed, but the guidelines seem to want it under "Bibliography" which makes no sense to me. I've never seen this in an article in Wikipedia. To me, it makes no sense to keep adding books that weren't used in preparing the document. It's like saying, "the above is all well and good, but if you want to know the real truth read...."

If really scholarly books are found that say anything different from the article, I suggest that the article be changed (ugh!) and the reference added as a footnote. Student7 12:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs some work[edit]

i'll draft some folks to make this article a bit more scholarly and a bit less sensational (in the negative sense). XKV8R (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, PiCo has done a pretty good job. it is much improved already. you must have done this literally minutes before i wrote this. it's been on my clean up list for weeks. kudos. XKV8R (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning name of non-notable[edit]

I can appreciate having to use the name of an author to distinguish between references (for the reader) sometimes. "Smith says... but Jones claims..." In the case of Greenfield, he does not have an article. That is my point. He is therefore, officially, WP:NN nevermind his extensive credentials on paper. Without an article, he is, well, like ME! Just another guy. Our mentioning him here, without an article sounds like WP:PR (promotion) for someone who is not otherwise notable. Stating what he is, with his footnote, is another matter, and allowable.Student7 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

untrue. WP:NN only establishes whether one is worthy of a dedicated blp article on wp. it does not preclude a scholar's name from being mentioned as an authority on a wp subject article.--XKV8R (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the WP:N page when it was brought up earlier and read it before replacing Prof. Jonas Greenfield's name. He was one of 3 appointed to oversee Dead Sea Scrolls editing when Strugnell left. He was one of the greatest comparative Semitic language scholars of the 20th century. He deserves an article; that it is lacking hardly makes him non-notable. Thanks for considering these facts.Coralapus (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

dr. greenfield is a notable scholar. his name is worth mentioning in the article. we should write him an article. i'll help replace his name if removed in subsequent edits. --XKV8R (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether he is notable or not. That is the point. We don't argue notability or non-notability. He either has an article or he doesn't. If the US Pres does not have an article he is nn! If I have an article I am (temporarily anyway!) notable! That way,we don't argue out notability on a page that is supposed to be dedicated to the topic, not to notability. I am not questioning the WP:RELY of the reference, which is really key here. The flip side is why is it essential to mention his name? Why are we "promoting" this man? The article is about the Copper Scroll not a biography or an author list. Mentioning people detracts from the Copper Scroll itself and makes the people more important. It is an editorial question/problem. There is no need to create this problem. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i think i'm misunderstanding your definition of 'article.' are stating that we should not mention an author by name if he doesn't have a wp blp article about him??? that is nonsense!
dr. greenfield has published several articles on the subject. he is therefore worthy of mention in a wp article on the subject of his expertise. if you are claiming that since he does not have a dedicated wp article about him, then that is something different, and something about which i don't care. regardless of whether one's career is worthy of a blp article about one's life, one's professional publications (i.e., books, articles, etc.) are worthy of mention in a wp article about a particular subject. that is to say, one does not need a personal wp article about oneself to be mentioned in an article on a subject.--XKV8R (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the very reason that we are discussing this at length on this page, which is the wrong page. It should be his article. All we should have to discuss here is whether the reference is WP:RELY or not. By mentioning a nn person, it raised issues that we are wasting our time discussing, which is why it shouldn't happen. Describing someone as a "scholar" who is nn, makes it even more WP:POV. This discussion would be entirely unnecessary if we followed Wikipedia guidelines. We are making this more about Greenfield than about the Copper Scroll. That is a problem that need not have been caused and is easy to handle. Simply rm the nn person's name. Student7 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again, 7student7, i believe you to be cornfusing the notability of a person with the reliability of their scholarly authority. i'm sorry you don't have a blp biography about you and haven't published a scholarly article or book on the copper scroll. however, just because prof greenfield has not had the honor of having a wp article written about him does not mean that he is not noteworthy or any less of an authority on the dss. i'd create one for him, but you'd likely slap a nn tag on it and i don't have the time to campaign for him. if wp ever wants to be taken seriously by scholars, it needs to allow reputable scholars to be cited. *if* there is a wiki rule that says you can never mention someone that does not have a wp blp article about them (and i question this interpretation), then that is a stupid rule and one that i shall continue to challenge. i take it from the fact that no other editors have rushed to defend you that they agree that a reputable scholar w/out a blp article can be mentioned in a subject article in a field where said scholar is an accepted authority. (and if editors show up to defend you now, i'll claim meat puppetry.) leave greenfield's name, and if and when you become a dss scholar, i personally will add your name and cite your article even if you don't have the honor of a wp blp article about you. ;-) --XKV8R (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for reference, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NN#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content
see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#CHALLENGED (this article explicitly states we should, when possible, mention the name of the one being cited: "Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." and it explicitly says: "Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ...")
see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#When_quoting_someone (which again states that a name should be associated with he claim to add verifiability.)
nowhere in the above rules for citation does it ever stipulate that a cited source must possess an independent, WP:BLP article about them in order to be eligible for mention in an article on a subject.
q.e.d. so let's drop this. greenfield's name stays.--XKV8R (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greenfield is now notable, so not an issue. Not really that convinced his name needs to be mentioned but that is a trivial issue compared to the potential of using self-published authors and pushing them in pr fashion on an unsuspecting Wikipedia reader audience. Student7 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to have informed you about Greenfield. But when you don't know the subject, you will not be able to know whether an author is notable in the field or not. Greenfield is notable whether you have come across him or not, whether someone thought to put him in Wiki or not. If you are dealing with the matters related to the Dead Sea Scrolls, you need to have heard of him. As you haven't, it's time to expand your reading. Arguing from lack of knowledge and hiding behind literal interpretations of rules won't help you.--Ihutchesson (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I've been on this site, defending it against History Channel newbies for quite some time.
Second, there are several editing issues having nothing to do with knowledge of the topic. Can the name of a nn author be used? A second issue, which I haven't raised before, is can the name of a notable author be used gratuitously? That is, in an article that is supposed to emphasize the WP:TOPIC, can I keep saying, over and over that "jones say this {ref) and Jones says that(ref)" instead of merely saying, more to the readers enlightenment, "This is so {ref) and that is so (ref)." Are we trying to enlighten the reader about the topic or promote a person? This article is not supposed to be promoting an individual IMO. It is supposed to be emphasizing a topic.
(It may be necessary in other contexts to use name such as "Jones says this (ref) but Smith says that (ref)". This has historically been done with names and is acceptable. We would not be promoting people as much as trying to keep the arguments straight and making the reader understand that there is a disagreement.
But that is not the case here. Student7 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a peer-reviewed journal reference is supplied, quibbling about whether the author is "nn" seems somewhat superfluous. Scholars usually want to know who said what and it is normal to supply the name of the source when a comment is referred to and not simply hidden in a footnote. It is what is done elsewhere on Wiki. An article on Wiki should be able to satisfy both the layperson and the scholar. (We hope that we don't get into the exaggerated "Jones say this (ref) and Jones says that(ref)". Pronouns have a purpose.)--Ihutchesson (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Treasure[edit]

From the article: "it merits mentioning that the Copper Scroll, unlike some other texts, does not mention the ark of the covenant (unlike 2 Maccabees 2:4-10), nor urim and thummin, nor the temple menorah and other objects sometimes mistakenly associated with it in sensationalistic literature.". This has been assigned a "citation needed" tag and a comment has been appended referring to the reference, but I'm not too sure what the commenter had in mind. So a couple of points: a) Requiring a reference for a negative statement about its content (as opposed to interpretation of that content) is daft, and there are already published translations listed. To reduce it to the absurd, if I wanted to claim the scroll contained no mention of soccer, say, would it need a citation tag? (though one might, obviously, remove such a statement for lack of relevance). If its not there, its not there. b) But if we're claiming significant interpretation / decoding / reconstruction of the text is required to make these references apparent, the statement should reflect that. c) Such objects cannot be "mistakenly associated" by those advancing theories based upon such an association (though their translation/interpretation might very well be unsubstantiated). d) The reference to 2Macc is irrelevant? It needs either explanation or removal. 93.182.179.45 (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Copper Scroll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Feather[edit]

We can't suggest that Tait or David have agreed with Feather without reliably sourced quotes from them. That's a matter of WP:BLP policy, particularly as Feather is fringe. Robert Cargill[1] has written that "Others, like author Robert Feather, have written several books touting the Copper Scroll’s connection to treasures from Egypt. The fact that most scholars have wholly dismissed claims by the Barfields, Golbs, and Feathers of the world has not stopped the latter from publishing books and raking in money from a public more than willing to entertain speculation and sensationalist claims over scholarly consensus and sound academic research." [2] Feather doesn't belong in the article. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ This. Wholeheartedly agreed. Since you and I both seem to patrol many of the same pages, Doug... You undoubtedly know how common it is for this kind of fringe material to be inserted. I wonder if it's about time that Wikimedia Labs starts hosting some sort of automated bot to search contributions for names that are connected to uncontested WP:FRINGE theories and flags the corresponding edits, much as they already do for likely BLP vandalism. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might be both easier and more complicated than that, User:Quinto Simmaco. We use filters to search for vandalism. I don't know if anyone would be willing to add something to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested but I think it might be too complicated, as most names can be used in some contexts, and there are different ways names are expressed, eg "Robert Feather" and "Feather, Robert". WP:FTN would be the place to disucss it. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit filter. Thank you. The familiar term completely escaped me. And yes, you're probably right. While fringe sources can and should be mentioned in some contexts, I was thinking that flagging such edits would allow people to evaluate the weight given to that view in the text. Given that this is one of the major criticisms of Wikipedia (as in its reliability as an academic source, for example), I'm sure the issue has probably been raised and dismissed as either impractical, or otherwise difficult to implement. As you suggest, and I'm sure you're right. I'll search the archives, and make the suggestion if by some chance it hasn't been covered. And/or perhaps ask one of the current or former filter editors who lurk on IRC. Thank you for your answer, Doug. :) Quinto Simmaco (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copper Scroll. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facsimile Editions[edit]

As the replica was started in 2014 is there an update? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

paleography (just add ancient?)[edit]

Would it be reasonable/acceptable to change the entry in the lead from the existing " palaeography (forms of letters)" to "palaeography (ancient forms of letters)"? I know readers can simply follow the link to palaeography, but I do think that the parenthetical description with the addition of 'ancient' helps the flow of reading the article some. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copper_Scroll&oldid=1206789775"