Talk:Copper Scroll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] Pictures
This article could really use some pictures - or at least links to pictures.
> I strongly agree with this thawt re providing pix on the page in question (not just links).
[edit] Unnecessary opening statements
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.
[edit] Unsubstantiated paragraph
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.
Deleted the above-mentioned paragraph. There was no Third Temple and "some scholars" is not substantiation.
>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
[edit] Why Wolters title excluded?
> 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
[edit] History Channel
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)
- 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)
[edit] Scholarship and new references
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)
