Talk:William Schniedewind/Archive 1

Curriculum Vitae

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)

EDUCATION

Ph.D., M.A., Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, Brandeis University (Waltham, MA). Dissertation, "Prophets, Prophecy, and Inspiration: A Study of Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles," advisors Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane. 1986 - 1992.

M.A., Historical Geography of Ancient Israel, Jerusalem University College (Jerusalem, Israel). M. A. Thesis, "Building Terms and Source Citations in the Books of Kings and Chronicles," advisor Anson F. Rainey. 1984 - 1986.

B. A., Religion, George Fox University (Newberg, OR). B.A. Honors Thesis, "Sacramental and Ecclesiastical Theology in the Pre-Augustinian Church." 1980 - 1984.

UCLA UNDERGRADUATE COURSES

JSt/Hist M191A: Ancient Jewish History from Patriarchs to Rabbis

JSt 170: Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Judaism

ANE 10W: Jerusalem, the Holy City

Heb 120: Biblical Texts

JSt M150A: Bible and Apocrypha

UCLA GRADUATE SEMINARS

8th Century Judah

Innerbiblical Interpretation

History of the Hebrew Language

Northwest Semitic Inscriptions

Ugaritic

Textual Criticism: The Book of Genesis

Book of Exodus

Book of Deuteronomy

Book of Samuel

Book of Isaiah

Book of Amos

Book of Psalms

Book of Chronicles

Dead Sea Scrolls: Temple Scroll

Dead Sea Scrolls: Damascus Document

Dead Sea Scrolls: Pesher Literature

Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran Liturgy

TEACHING AND RESEARCH AREAS

Specialization: Hebrew Bible, Northwest Semitics, Second Temple Judaism

Competence: Archaeology, Ancient Near East, Early Christianity

Current Research Interests: Social and Cultural History of Ancient Palestine, Inner-biblical and Early Jewish Interpretation, Sociolinguistics of Hebrew Language

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Steering Committee, Center for the Study of Religion, UCLA

Steering Committee, Center for Jewish Studies, UCLA

Network editor, Dead Sea Scrolls & Second Temple Judaism, Religious Studies Review

Program Committee, Hebrew Bible, History, and Archaeology Section, Society of Biblical Literature

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

Books

A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture, and Literature, co-authored with Joel Hunt, Cambridge University Press, 2007.

How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Society and the Promise to David: A Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1-17, Oxford University Press, 1999.

The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period, JSOTSS, 197. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995.

Articles

"Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew," Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5 (2004), Article 6. .pdf

"Explaining God’s Name in Exodus 3," Congress Volume of the IOSOT Meeting, Basel 2001 (eds. Matthias Augustin and Hermann Michael Niemann), (Bern: Peter Lang, 2004). .pdf

"The Evolution of Name Theology," in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph Klein (eds. M. Graham, S. McKenzie, G. Knoppers) (London/New York: Continuum, 2003). .pdf

"Jerusalem, the Late Judahite Monarchy, and the Composition of the Biblical Texts," in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, edited by Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew (Atlanta: Scholars, 2003), pp. 375-393. .pdf

"A Possible Reconstruction of the Name of Hazael’s Father in the Tel Dan Inscription," (co-authored with Bruce Zuckerman), Israel Exploration Journal 51 (2001), pp. 88-91.

"Linguistic Ideology in Qumran Hebrew," Symposium Volume of the Beersheva Conference on the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls (November 1998), (Leiden, Brill, 2000), pp. 245-255. .pdf

"Sociolinguistic Reflections on the Letter of a 'Literate' Soldier (Lachish 3)," Zeitschrift für Althbraistik 13 (2000), pp. 157-167. .pdf

"Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel," Religious Studies Review 26/4 (2000), pp. 327-332. .pdf

"The Chronicler as an Interpreter of Scripture," in Chronicles as Literature (eds. Pat Graham and Steven McKenzie; Sheffield: JSOT, 1999), pp. 158-180. .pdf

"Qumran Hebrew as an Antilanguage," Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999), pp. 235-252. .pdf

"The Geopolitical History of Philistine Gath," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 309 (1998), pp. 69-77. .pdf

"Structural Aspects of Qumran Messianism in the Damascus Document," in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls New Text, Reformulated Issues, and Technological Innovations (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 523-536. .pdf

"The Dialect of the Elisha-Elijah Narratives: A Case Study in Northern Hebrew," co-authored with Daniel Sivan, Jewish Quarterly Review 137 (1997), pp. 303-337. .pdf

"Prophets in the Chronicler's History Work," in Chronicles and the History of Israel (eds. M. Patrick Graham, and Kenneth G. Hoglund; JSOTSS, 238; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), pp. 204 - 224.

"The Tel Dan Stele: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302 (1996), pp. 75-90. .pdf view drawing of Tel Dan Stele

"A Qumran Fragment of the Ancient 'Prayer of Manasseh'?" Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 108 (1996), pp. 105-7.

"The Problem with Kings: Recent Study of the Deuteronomistic History," Religious Studies Review 22,1 (1996), pp. 22-27. .pdf

"Are We His People or Not? Biblical Interpretation During Crisis," Biblica 76 (1995), pp. 540-550. .pdf

"Textual Criticism and Theological Interpretation: a pro-Temple Tendenz in the Greek Text of Samuel-Kings," Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994), pp. 107-116.

"History or Homily: Toward Understanding the Chronicler's Purpose," in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A: The Bible and Its World. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994, pp. 91-97.

"King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the Duality of Qumran Messianism," Journal of Jewish Studies 94 (1994), pp. 71-78. .pdf

"History and Interpretation: The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh in the Book of Kings," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993), pp. 640-661.

"Letting Your 'Yes' be 'No' in Ancient Israel: A Study of the Asseverative l' and hl' in Hebrew," co-authored with Daniel Sivan, Journal of Semitic Studies 38 (1993), pp. 209-226. .pdf

"The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily," Vetus Testamentum 91 (1991), pp. 450-61.

End of article is advertisement and should be dumped

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)

disagree

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)

I did not participate in that discussion, but two points must be raised here.

(1) The sentence on Schniedewind's participation in "excavations and surveys in Israel" is not "sourced material" and is unverifiable. What role does Dr. Schniedewind claim to have played in these excavations and surveys? To be sure, biblical studies and archaeology overlap, but information is needed on this and should be readily obtainable from Robert Cargill, otherwise the sentence sounds mendacious, is an embarrassment to Schniedewind himself and should be removed. (2) If the two concluding paragraphs are to remain, then they should still be rewritten to provide concrete information and remove the advertisement-like language ("inspiration," etc.) in them. I recommend the following, subject to improvement by Cargill or Schniedewind:

Dr. Schniedewind's view that the key archaeological findings of the past decade concerning Khirbet Qumran can be reconciled with the Qumran-Essene theory of Dead Sea Scroll origins led to the Qumran Visualization Project[1] and to the making of a virtual reality film on Qumran currently being shown at the San Diego Natural History Museum. The film and Schniedewind's views on Qumran have been the topic of several newspaper articles.[2]

As you will see, I have kept both of the references, modified the text to explain what Schniedewind's contribution was rather than saying he was an "inspiration" which does not belong in an encyclopedia article, and removed the unverifiable (and to my mind dubious as written) statement about his participation in digs and surveys. Let Robert Cargill improve my version and propose a more precise statement on Dr. Schniedewind's role in the excavations and surveys.Critical Reader 05:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

agree

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)

Dubious

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)

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)

Ties with Christian fundamentalist organizations

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)

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)

As I said, it matters because otherwise readers will not be able to situate him in the social/cultural/academic context of our time. Fundamentalism is a fact of life today, I don't see how mentioning it detracts from an article's neutrality. The institutions in question explicitly reject Darwin, they explicitly promote the inerrancy of the Bible and other fundamentalist doctrines, and part of their objective is to "re-present" early Christian behaviour today--ultimately, it would appear, so that it can be imposed as a mandatory system of practice. It has been suggested that Schniedewind's interpretation of the famous Khirbet Qumran site as inhabited by purity-loving Essene "monks" rather than simply Jewish soldiers and pottery-makers is influenced by those beliefs; indeed, the Qumran-Essene theory is presented as a fact on the website of the fundamentalist organization on whose board he serves as an advisor. (See the Nowpublic article linked above; see also U of Chicago historian Norman Golb's "Grain of Salt" Forward editorial, which does not mention Schniedewind but provides the intellectual context; see also Golb's article on "Fact and Fiction in Current Exhibitions of the Dead Sea Scrolls," which sharply criticizes Schniedewind's "virtual reality" film.) Since Schniedewind's interpretation of Qumran is at the core of the film currently being shown to an estimated 450,000 people in San Diego, since it has been covered in numerous news articles distributed by Schniedewind's student Cargill (who also contributed this article about Schniedewind), and since Schniedewind has thereby become a controversial public figure, it seems quite obvious to me that readers should be supplied, in an appropriately neutral manner, with pertinent information on the nature of his background and present affiliations so they can understand what role he plays in current scholarship.Critical Reader 02:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

P.s. meanwhile I have put back one sentence which seems to me entirely non-controversial by any standard, concerning his position on the board of advisors of the University of the Holy Land, which I have described as "Christ-centered" in the interest of avoiding controversy. If you disagree with my term, please substitute something you find more accurate, rather than simply removing the sentence altogether. Bear in mind that the agenda of the University of the Holy Land is not merely Christian, it clearly involves the recuperation of what its members regard as the true, early form of Christianity, and thereby fits the pattern of the other fundamentalist institutions that have played a role (one that could be eminently positive as far as I'm concerned) in Schniedewind's life.Critical Reader 03:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

The "Christ-centered" element matters, because (1) Golb's Forward editorial states that "the complex history of the Palestinian Jews on the eve of the First Revolt is being pushed aside in favor of a bizarre, Christologically colored thesis"; (2) this "Christologically colored thesis" is being specifically promulgated by the Christ-centered University of the Holy Land (UHL), on whose Board of Advisors Schniedewind sits; (3) UHL and Schniedewind's agenda is being specifically publicized in the San Diego exhibit, in the form of Schniedewind's film which is also featured on the UHL site; and (4) Golb and others who oppose that agenda have been excluded from the exhibit, an exclusion that has been the subject of controversy in major newspapers. I don't see how one can say that it "doesn't matter," it is obviously at the core of the controversy surrounding Schniedewind and the exhibit. Schniedewind may be right, and fundamentalism is no doubt a legitimate view, but nonetheless to leave these details out, while mentioning the film and the exhibit, obscures the basic facts and is not neutralCritical Reader 05:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

P.s. to sum this up briefly, I think what you're failing to recognize is that Schniedewind's views are at the center of a major museum exhibit (funded by six million dollars in grants from donors who include Stephen Spielberg) that has become the subject of public controversy. This distinguishes him from scholars who are simply doing independent research in their offices. He should not be allowed to promote his role in the exhibit without providing sufficient information to enable one to comprehend the controversial aspect of that role.Critical Reader 05:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I undid anonymous additions, here's why:

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)

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)

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)

First of all, those pages were protected not on account of something I did or said, but on account of the fact that someone else kept inserting defamatory statements into the "Norman Golb" article, and then engaged me in an insane edit war on the museum page. To blame me for any of that is ridiculous. Second, I don't know anything about "RL carryovers," but now, on these grounds alone, Cargill has entirely removed the sourced information that Schniedewind is on the Board of Advisors of the University of the Holy Land. Unless he provides some kind of rational argument for removing the information, I will reinsert it. He and Schniedewind seem to be attempting to hide their involvement with that institution, for reasons that will be apparent from everything I said earlier.

Now, in response to I-said's request for sources: (1) In addition to Golb's "Fact and Fiction" article which specifically critiques the film as described on the museum's website, see the lengthy response by Robert Cargill (i.e., the very person who posted this article about Schniedewind) to Jim West's criticism at http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/qumran-warrior-central/, and Charles Gadda's response to Cargill at http://www.nowpublic.com/dead_sea_scrolls_qumran_fortress_team_responds_criticism. Cargill referred to Gadda's articles in his attempt to justify his own "notability" on wikipedia, demonstrating sensitivity to the matter--i.e., whatever the "reliability" criteria are, the people concerned and many others as well are clearly reading those articles and praying, I dare say, that they don't get cited on wikipedia. (2) The press campaign on Schniedewind's film (see the lengthy list of articles on Cargill's userpage), most of which was put out by UCLA and written by their press department presumably in cooperation with Schniedewind, makes no mention whatsoever of the controversy surrounding the exhibit. Yet Schniedewind's film is a central feature of the exhibit, and the controversy is undeniable (see, e.g., the Los Angeles Times article cited on the San Diego Natural History Museum page, or "Controversy Alive and Well" at http://chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?sid=1&id=250911), and all kinds of letters and comments published in news sites ranging from the Jewish Observer (Los Angeles) to the Voice of San Diego (the list is quite long and there is no point in me documenting it). (3) So the fact that Schniedewind has (so far at least, in major newspapers) appeared to be immune from criticism appears to be simply a result of the press campaign's failure to provide basic information. For example, the Jewish Journal article of June 15 http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17788 provides a detailed description of Schniedewind's film, describes him as a "practicing Christian with a deep appreciation of Judaism," and says nothing of any controversy. The description, however, makes it clear that the film sets forward a series of claims (male Essenes lived without female company at Qumran, took ritual baths, copied scrolls, etc.) which are identical to the ones that have been argued to be groundless by Golb (as cited in the L.A. Times, New York Times and other papers) and the series of Israeli scholars who have all, unlike Schniedewind, been excluded from the San Diego exhibit. (I leave aside the misleading nature of the press campaign as respects the claimed originality of Schniedewind's work, its failure to mention the scholars in question, etc.) It suffices to put two and two together and one sees that this wikipedia article about Schniedewind, just like the press campaign, is in fact not neutral, but advertises his role in the exhibit without mentioning the controversy and without providing any information that would allow the reader to understand what the underlying problem is (see my points made earlier).Critical Reader 16:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

P.s. to which I add that I had nothing to do with any lockdown on the Dead Sea Scrolls page. If you read the discussion there, you will see that I specifically requested the removal of the advertisement materal that had been inserted by the Museum, which is what was ultimately done. Cargill's suggestion to the contrary is a cheap shot.Critical Reader 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

P.p.s. since Mr. Cargill has not supplied a good-faith reason for removing the information, I have reinserted it. I have replaced "Christ-centered" with "Christian educational," because those are the exact words the institution uses to describe itself.Critical Reader 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Qumran project material promotes workproduct of the article's author; should it be in article?

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)

P.s. I have removed the paragraph, simply to call your attention to this question. If you feel that Mr. Cargill's promotion of his own product (i.e., one that he co-authored with his professor) is not grounds for eliminating the paragraph, then by all means, revert.Critical Reader 22:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't promotion. Its neutral, and sourced. i ^said 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It concerns a project on which the author of the article himself collaborated (and for which he received $100,000). Is one allowed to include one's own achievements in a wikipedia article authored by oneself?Critical Reader 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, then I am certainly right to the extent that it is indeed "discouraged." If Mr. Cargill considers the project he worked on to be important enough to require its being mentioned here, then it will surely also be relevant and neutral to source the criticism to which the project has been subjected by a well-known scholar like Golb, as well as the fact that the film is a central feature of a museum exhibit that is the subject of bitter controversy. Mr. Cargill may wish to consider that some things which, technically speaking, are permitted nonetheless may give rise to an appearance of impropriety and therefore may not be entirely appropriate.Critical Reader 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have inserted a neutral, sourced, and not over-weighted reference to Golb's criticism of Schniedewind's film; Cargill has removed it on the grounds that it is "redundant." I do not see how it is redundant, as it adds information that allows the reader to see that the film is the subject of controversy. I will revert; please adjudicate.Critical Reader 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Final paragraph of article is unsourced

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)

Cargill has now reinserted this paragraph containing unsourced claims without any explanation whatsover; I will revert; please adjudicate.Critical Reader 21:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopaedia article or a curriculum vitae?

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)

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)

I'm sorry for the length of this response, but I need to make certain things clear.

On pp. 10-11 of his article, Golb discusses a "virtual reality" film being shown in the museum's "giant auditorium." This is the film produced by Schniedewind and Cargill, to which this encyclopaedia article devotes a paragraph. Golb does not need to mention Schniedewind's name, he is specifically discussing Schniedewind's film and its role in the museum exhibit.

You will see that Golb specifically takes issue with the museum's claim that the film contains "new findings." This claim of "new findings" by Schniedewind appears not only on the museum's website, but in the series of newspaper articles that have been appearing about Schniedewind and his project. Therefore, it is a matter of public import.

Then, on p. 11, Golb states that the museum's argument based on the film "clearly distorts the significance of a major archaeological team's discoveries made over a ten-year period." Again, this argument is not only made by the museum, but by all of the news articles in question.

Therefore, what we have here are claims being made that, according to Golb and others, (1) wrongly credit Schniedewind with "new findings," and (2) "distort the significance" of other scholars' discoveries.

In the world of scholarship such charges are not made lightly, and are a serious matter; when the claims at issue are being made in a series of newspaper articles, then such charges are even more important, particularly where, as is the case here, the source of many of the news articles in question is the press room of the university where the individual alleged to have been wrongly credited teaches.

I continue to feel that Schniedewind's positions on steering committees are trivial and do not deserve to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article; his affiliation with a Christian fundamentalist institution is, however, highly significant in light of the criticism being leveled against his alleged distortion of current research to support a Christ-centered theory (that Qumran was inhabited by a proto-Christian, communal "sect," see Golb's article, top of p. 11 and his Forward editorial).

The basic point here is that an ethical problem arises if one's religious affiliations are allowed to interfere with scientific conclusions, particularly when those conclusions reach (at a minimum) 500,000 people in the form of a film; and that is why, in my view, it behooves wikipedia to mention the debate in this article.Critical Reader 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Okay then. I have added the following, with three sources:

The originality and accuracy of the film's treatment of Khirbet Qumran and current archaeological research, and the film's role in the San Diego exhibit, have been the subject of debate.

I am sure the sentence will simply be removed, in which case I don't know what to do since I don't want to engage in an absurd edit war again. If the sentence is too long or if the content is not neutral enough, I am more than happy to work towards the proper solution.Critical Reader 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have attempted to do so, but this resulted in me lengthening the sentence so that it now reads:

The originality and accuracy of the film's treatment of Khirbet Qumran and current archaeological research, and the film's role in the San Diego exhibit, have been the subject of debate; in particular, it has been argued that media coverage of the film, including on the museum's website, has wrongly credited Schniedewind with findings that were in fact made by several Israeli archaeologists.

I'm not sure if this results in the sentence being too long or in a neutrality-related issue. It's very difficult to explain the issue with concision but I have tried. Will be happy to modify according to further instructions.Critical Reader 03:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hey i -Leave the first part, lose everything after "...the subject of debate." It is falsely accusatory. IsraelXKV8R 03:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, on second thought, leave it. Leave it for a while. Thanx. IsraelXKV8R

I have re-written the second half as follows:

in particular, it has been suggested that the museum and media coverage of the film have wrongly credited Schniedewind with the finding that Khirbet Qumran was originally a military fortress, and that the film provides insufficient information concerning the grounds for the conclusion of Israeli archaeologists that Essenes or other sectarians never inhabited Qumran or wrote scrolls there.

Please confirm if you want me to leave it. I don't think it is falsely accusatory, because it simply reports what has been suggested. (One may of course feel that what has been suggested is falsely accusatory, but that is the kind of difficulty that often arises when public figures are criticized.) At any rate, I have no serious problem with dropping the second half of the sentence, since the first half gives the public enough information to follow up on. Please respond or amend, and we can let I-said adjudicate if necessary.Critical Reader 04:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please avoid "it has been suggested", see WP:WEASEL. If someone is suggesting that, attribute it: "Mike Boehm, of the Los Angeles Times, suggests that...." That is NPOV writing 101. Also, do not string three citations at the end of the paragraph, because it is not clear which source is used to support which claim made in the text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a first go at attributing and specifying the arguments in better NPOV fashion pursuant to your suggestion. This necessitated putting the specific claims in the footnote, which seems better to me anyway. Let me know what you think.Critical Reader 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now been informed of the statement, made three years ago in a magazine article: "Yesterday, archaeologists who are financed by Christian fundamentalist organizations said at a news conference that despite recent theories to the contrary, there was a community at Qumran which could be called 'the oldest monastery in the Western world.'" "Archaeologists find John the Baptist's cave, argue who wrote Dead Sea Scrolls," IsraelInsider, August 17, 2004, http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El3983&enZone=Culture&enVersion=0&

Given Schniedewind's position with the University of the Holy Land and the fact that he is making the same argument, the question necessarily arises whether he is affiliated with these "archaeologists who are financed by Christian fundamentalist organizations." Since none of the archaeologists in question is mentioned by name in the magazine article, I see no way of introducing this information into the article here, but if further details come out on this matter, then I will be obliged to make the case again for mentioning the affiliation.Critical Reader 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)