Talk:Norman Golb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	Judaism Portal Norman Golb is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Does it belong here?

Does this "Manufacturing" section belong to an encyclopaedia article? --Barbatus 13:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have eliminated the "Manufacturing" section in its entirety because it is purely polemical in intent, in part defamatory rather than neutral, largely concerns the identity of various internet bloggers and obviously does not belong in an encyclopaedia article describing a university professor. If the author of the section reinserts it into the article, there will be an editing war.Critical Reader 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope peace will be preserved ... --Barbatus 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I fear not--he has inserted the rubbish again and I have deleted it. If you know the exact procedure for an edit war, please let me know.Critical Reader 08:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page fully protected

We cannot have junk like that chucked into a biography of a living person. Come on, we can do better. Is this material even relevant? Moreschi ^Talk 11:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please correct link for Spertus College with brackets only around "Spertus College" thanks HG | Talk 07:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems to redirect to the same page, Spertus Institute. Redirects are fine; there is no reason to edit the page just to switch from one to another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality, please

Jossi has unblocked this page and introduced a snide comment about Golb criticizing "scholars and institutions for rejecting his theories." This is simply not neutral, but seems to reflect Jossi's personal opinion (or at any rate the opinion of Golb's opponents) of what Golb did in his book. I have edited and added further sources accordingly. I find the footnote process very complicated; perhaps Jossi could help out footnoting the sources rather than having them as embedded links.Phillip Kirby (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I would appreciate it if you could discuss before categorically eliminating sources I've introduced. You say "stay close to sources"--how am I not staying close to the New York Times article or to Magen and Peleg? If you still don't think I'm close to the sources, please explain what you mean so we can improve accordingly without having to retype the whole thing, it's simply impolite on your part to make me do that.

The real concern here, is that the article was not neutral with the single "Chicago Jewish News" quote you used, because there are widely different views on this idea of a "consensus"--a New York Times article of 2004 specifically quoted a Qumran scholar as stating "there is no longer any consensus" on the topic. Would you like me to source that article as well to argue with your point? All I want is for the article to come out in a neutral form, is that what you want?Phillip Kirby (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That is the aim. My edit was not a "snide" comment, but just describing what a source has tyo say about this subject. The concern is that from what I am reading Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg do not mention Golb at all. Are they in support of Golb's positions? If not, we cannot add this to an article on Golb as we will be in violation of WP:NOR. Of course, the positions of Yitzhak Magen and Yuval Peleg can be fully described in Qumran. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish to make a few points here:

(1) That Magen and Peleg don't cite Golb by name is irrelevant, the theory they propose (that Qumran was a secular site and that the scrolls came from the Jerusalem region and were not written by any single sect within ancient Judaism) is almost exactly the same as Golb's theory. In fact, the New York Times article about Magen and Peleg specifically quotes Golb as saying that the site may indeed have been used as a pottery factory.

(2) There are many well-known differences between traditional scrolls scholars (some think the "community" of Qumran were Essenes, some think it was a different sect; some think they lived in Qumran, some think they lived "around" Qumran; some think they wrote all the scrolls there, some think they only wrote "some" or "most" of them; etc.) and this has never prevented anyone from treating them all as defenders of the Qumran-sectarian theory. Clearly, Magen and Peleg support the diametrically opposed view of Golb, Elior and others (see the bibliography in Golb's review of the Virtual Qumran film cited in the article on William Schniedewind) who believe the scrolls had nothing to do with Qumran or any single sect and came from the Jerusalem region.

(3) As for why Magen and Peleg don't cite Golb by name, I think the answer is clear: the range of responses to Golb's book have been charged with volatile emotions, as is clear from various statements reported in the press (e.g., M. Broshi's declaration, reported in Haaretz, that "we will be rid of Golb when he dies"). Magen and Peleg are clearly saying, by their very silence, that they and their team have reached these conclusions independently and will not be drawn into a vicious personal quarrel opposing Golb and other scholars. David Saunderfeld (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to add material about this fascinating dispute at Qumran, where there is already material about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)