This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It certainly is illustrative of your awareness that your links aren't directly related to the article when you remove the headings in the External Links section in order to reinsert the links. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 00:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
As an external link the Rohrhirsch site is rather unhelpful for the vast majority of Wiki users, especially not being in English. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Many readers arrive wondering about the relationship of the site to the scrolls, or, you would hope to add, if any (even if brought there, that's some relationship). About Qumran in historical context. For heaven's sake, the bibliography includes an article that asserts that all the scrolls came from Jerusalem only and no later than 63 BCE. Who thinks that? Do you even still? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yet I have not erased it... Though if you wish a shorter article, there are things that could fairly be cut... Some content could be moved to footnotes (e.g. Donceel encyclopedia confirmation that the silver coin hoard dates end 9/8). As you said, notes and links are for those who wish to go deeper; so don't cut off their avenues selectively, tendentiously. Why prefer imagined pottery exporters (with your misleading supposed "response" to Gunneweg 2010 presented falsely as if), trading post staff (despite poor tracks), perfumers, aristocrat vacationers, and other chimeras to the Essenes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Essenes, not de Vaux imposed, as your false myth has it, but the evident best option, from multiple streams of evidence, as discussed in my paper, for some of the time (how long debatable; and how many debatable). The censorship in some deletions is patent. Some articles you call "scholarly" are less so and less relevant than some content you censor, delete. Bracketing off and ignoring evidence, based on a priori commitments or ideologies, witholding it from others, is censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That numerous scholars from 1532 to 1938 proposed the Hebrew original of "Essenes" that was the then actually found at Qumran as a self-designation, as declaration of identity (an identity Sadducees and Pharisees and later Rabbis would not accept) according to numerous scholars since 1948 to 2010 is pretty relevant and belongs in this article. Coralapus ( talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Excluding it in the name of "neutrality" is bizarre. The Jannaeus article discusses archaeology more relevantly than other publications currently cited in the article and provides plausible documented historical context moreso that items currently cited in the article. Attempting to seal off Scrolls, Khirbeh, and Essenes merely distorts. Asking readers to piece relevant items together from other articles is disingenuous. Other articles are for further exploration, not islands to be kept separate, in a pretend world. Pre-63 Sadducees, reportedly, were a small conservative torah-only group that rejected resurrection and texts with named angels, who persuaded "few" (according to Josephus), hence do not fit. Coralapus ( talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You are not listening. Have you read Weston Fields DSS Full History? (with a transcription correction) In 1953 Brownlee identified the TR as Judah the Essene; Milik then agreed (later changing); then Carmignac and others. Jannaeus was proposed by Delcor, Allegro, Yadin and many others 9i.e. before me0. 1532--fifteen thirty-two--Ph. Melanchthon wrote that Essenes comes from the Hebrew root 'asah. I have more bibliography. These three observations are not original to me. They are major, relevant views that you disingenuously wish to exclude because they are not your views. Simple as that. Claiming neutrality is absurd. It is not wrong to say Rengstorf said X but others say Y. Much of the rest of the article is, necessarily, just like that. De Vaux gave X dates; others give Y or Z dates. What you delete, censor, is more relevant than much of what you do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC) And somebody *did* put Sadducees into the article, based on misunderstanding of MMT (failure to read J. Baumgarten JAOS) among others. Coralapus ( talk) 09:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
If you read the article indroduction you will be reminded about stuff about MMT and Sadducees that you prefer, in the text. You simply a priori want to include Sadducees or Zadokites and exclude Essenes. Your neutrality claim is bogus. I suggest all major views be included, including Essenes. You seem to wish to lead readers to regard Essenes as an expired view, when it is, in fact, live, and growing in evidence, unlike many of the marginal guesses that you allow to stay in the article. Coralapus ( talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus Accurate link annotations are preferable to inaccurate link groupings Coralapus ( talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, as already explained above, it is descriptive of the current state of discussion of Qumran to include these issues. Who lived at the site is obviously relevant. See e.g., Rengstorf p. 15, Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad (2009) p. 192-3, VanderKam, DSS Today 2nd ed. (2010), Craig Evans, Guide to the DSS (2010). Have you read Weston Fields DSS A Full History vol. 1? I recommend it. Coralapus ( talk) 10:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Again, mischaracterization of the material that you censor. It is reporting a major fact that several learned scholars (I have provided bibliography extensively) find the Hebrew original of the name "Essenes' in several scrolls found at Qumran, as a self-designation, which surely is relevant to the question whether Essenes lived there. Coralapus ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
That Essenes did live there, is, after all, the majority scholarly view, though you wish that hidden from readers. Coralapus ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Excluding this misleads readers, towards (no surprise) your preferred imagined history. No real scholar that I know accepts your proposal of Qumran history and scrolls no later than 63 BCE--no scholar. The link article includes more relevant discussion of Qumran in context, with extensive bibliography, than some links you mis-label as "scholarly." If your obscuring of facts stands, wikipedia readers will be ill served. Coralapus ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Perhaps it would be constructive to focus on one question at a time. Do you have a copy of Karl Rengstorf, Hirbet Qumran (1963) at hand? If so, it could save me typing text that helps explain why his views on Essenes (page 15) were important as his views on the Temple, both vis-a-vis Qumran. He uses claims about Temple as the pro side for his view and the Essene name for the con argument against the majority view. In each case readers can evaluate both arguments with their own pro or con evaluation. That's informing readers, passing along information, rather than keeping them in the dark. Coralapus ( talk) 10:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
I take it, then, that you don't have the Rengstorf book and are unable to read what he wrote on page 15 giving the quoted passage as his number 1 objection (of 5, should you ever care enough to read) to Essenes at Qumran. Rengstorf says the question is most relevant. You distort Rengstorf as well! Wow. By the way Jannaeus is linked at Bible and Interpretation--a location you have drawn on for other links, showing that another of your objections a pseudo-objection, attempt to hide your intention that the article be biased. You were close-minded and too fast to reject some suggested changes by Est.r, as well. Coralapus ( talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus Coralapus ( talk) 09:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
I do wonder whether, given your history of using aliases on sites that explicitly forbid that, and your use of names quite similar to names of real scholars--i.e your use on ane [ancient near east] and orion [Dead Sea Scrolls] list of "John J. Hays," when there is a real Hebrew Bible, John H. Hayes--I wonder whether Raphael Golb (another sockpuppet) was encouraged by your use of false names, indirectly or directly. (?) In either case, a reader of an article on Qumran should be informed of the majority view as well as the minority one. Just because you temporarily managed to exclude majority views elsewhere hardly recommends a repeat obscurantism. I have added links to other scholars Coralapus ( talk) 13:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Perhaps you think it is funny, but did you apologize to Prof. Hayes? And, if you care to reply: was Raphael Golb encouraged by your use of false names? Coralapus ( talk) 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
I asked a question; unanswered. Your unnecessary and inaccurate heading of "scholarly" excludes Qumran im Netz, while including another that is less so--hence, inaccurate. I put in a reference to a major question--the name Essene found at Qumran or not--surely relevant--with a VanderKam reference, which you erased. I will replace that major point of view of VanderKam, Isaak Jost, Melanchthon, Wm. Browmlee, C. Murphy and C. Evans and many others. You should not censor that. Not prevent readers from knowing the relevant *fact* that several scholars find the Hebrew of the name Essenes in Qumran scrolls, as a self-designation. Erasing that would be censorship, bias, distortion, obscurantism. Coralapus ( talk) 09:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)
About the caves, and why distinguishing upper and lower caves matters. There is an important question of which fragments came from which caves (and in some cases whether from Qumran caves or elsewhere). Weston Fields DSS Full History vol. 1 shows that there is good reason to think some of the currently-used cave assignments are mistaken. Fields also raises the question whether the "Cave One" scrolls actually came from two separate caves, only one of which was excavated by archaeologists. Hanan Eshel wrote that some writing on marl, currently assigned to Cave 11 makes more sense coming from a marl cave (Eshel, Hanan. "A Note on 11QPsd Fragment 1." Revue de Qumran 23/4 (2008) 529-531.. J. Milik proposed that a cave with jars, empty, unbroken was the "Timothy" cave; Stegemann had a different view. Now, scientific tests offer some possible hope of helping with provenance, matching fragments. There is more to be said about the differing caves, but one needs, at least, to notice the fact of difference, before progressing to further observations. If you would spend less time erasing and more time reading.... Coralapus ( talk) 10:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
[quoting Ihutchesson:] "Rengstorf's mention is a historical one about the site." Yes. And the site is Qumran. Hence relevant. He and numerous other scholars say it is relevant. The question is plain, though perhaps you do not know the answer. The link headings misled, on plain reading. What is different about a mention of an article by me compared to mention of an article by other editors (including you)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Not truly responsive, both. 1) You call a link to something by me advertising but a link to you (or another editor) non- advertising? Nonsense. 2) It is simple fact that if the name, in self-designation, is at the site, it is relevant. I present both points of view. Vermes, e.g., declares that Essenes were named by outsiders. I think he is mistaken, and has no evidence for that, but I don't attempt to hide his books from people. You are attempting to hide relevant facts from readers. 152.3.237.34 ( talk) 12:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Its not an archaeological site in Israel, its in the west Bank. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no real content difference between this section (Recent archaeological analysis) and the debate about the Q-E hypothesis, so I have integrated the Lonnqvist material from the former into the latter. The rest should eventually follow. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 06:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
don't think we need misleading sub-cats, but if we did them, i'd argue we do them in line with the dss article, which uses topical categories (not individuals' names). prolly not a bad idea to include all of the scholars who dealt with the topic as well, and not just highlight a few. -- XKV8R ( talk) 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Work redone in an effort to deal with some of the problems. Constructive changes will be accepted. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
While I have no real problem with the lengthy information regarding to the views of Qumran from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it doesn't belong in a section entitled "Later discussion..." regarding the analysis of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis. It should be placed prior to the major excavations of de Vaux early in the article and referred back to when dealing with Golb's re-presentation of the idea combined with other analyses. Bar-Adon was already placed in "Earlier issues", "earlier" being more around the time of the first wave of analysis from the time of de Vaux. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 03:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The complicated archaeological discussions regarding Qumran were rationalized as much as possible without removing significant content some time back. The Lönnqvist material was recently moved out of the "Later discussion: for a sectarian site" section and poorly relocated in the introduction to "Recent archaeological analysis". That section deals with specific archaeological issues, pottery, cisterns, coins, etc. Later discussion is used for stating the views of various scholars. That seems to be best suited for a discussion of the Lönnqvists' work. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is this page listed under the categories "Archaeological sites in Israel | National parks of Israel | Visitor attractions in Israel" when Qumran is not in Israel? 143.252.80.100 ( talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why use the term "West Bank" which of very modern provenance when Qumran is in the ancient region of Judea? At least put both, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.28.77 ( talk) 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
help for pronunciation would be nice..
GHUMRAN In Arabic language , some letters are differently pronounced in different regions : As I am Lebanese, even Catholic ,I read the Holy Coran and there we have a Surat Al Oomran ( آل عمران ) , who speaks about a tribe or a group parents of Virgin Mary . Then in connection with that people of Qumran. To pronounce ع Aayn Arabic it needs more effort than K or Q . So I think the original Aayn of the Coran was replaced by ق = to K' slowly since that time , but the Bedouins pronounce this letter as Gu , then Gumran or Ghumran . Any how , in The Coran we have two Sourats speeking , I think , about the same Qumran people : Surat Al Oomran and Surat Maryam ,it will be interesting to refer to them . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.115.158 ( talk) 04:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
ETYMOLOGY It would be nice to know the etymology of "Qumran". I found an LDS source that says it is an Arabic word, from the place name for Wadi Qumran. [1] I would like to be able to derive what the Hasmoneans may have called it, or the Herodians, or early Roman period inhabitants.
User Rolin Rolinbruno ( talk) 23:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This article focuses on the archaeology and implications of the site of Qumran. These naturally involve the DSS, but they are not the scope of the article, so do not deserve space in the lede. There is an article about the DSS clearly linked to here. There is no point in entering into polemic in the lede about the DSS. I have therefore removed the whole second paragraph. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I just removed this article from Category:Archaeological sites in Israel, which some have reinserted during the years. It's POV to say that places in the West Bank are in Israel. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 03:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have also removed a reference that calls Qumran an "Israeli" archaeological site. I've edited the sentence to indicate that it is "an archaeological site in the West Bank under the control of Israel". If this is inadequate, please discuss it here before considering an edit. Thanks. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the category. It is a factual error to say the area is in Israel. If the area had been annexed, then perhaps there would be an argument for having it alongside the West Bank category, but as it stands, Qumran is a non-sovereign area under military occupation - i.e. not "in Israel". Number 5 7 18:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the redundant collapsible bibliography section heading per MOS:COLLAPSE. it's not needed, and redundant to the heading directly above. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not a "politician". Please do not indirectly assert such. Even if any of us is wrong, changing the subject is not an incorrect strategy to assert that the choice to use collapsible tables (or any other method) is an incorrect choice of strategy to take.
"What you call "fluff and unnecessary" other people call "handy and helpful"." – I went and checked the article history and the talk page above. Your argument basically boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL. You are the only one who has ever asserted that there is any value to collapsibility of entire sections. If you want to bring up "that it has not been removed prior by any one who has visited", all I have to point to is " there are literally millions of other articles which do not feature anything of this sort".
"We are not dealing with either scrolling lists or boxes." – The exact quotes in context you are looking for are "[…] boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions..." and "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text" (emphasis mine). In the context of the first quote, I would say that all of the sections you are asserting should use collapsed tables are all three of the items voiced in that sentence. It is clear that the prohibition is targeting exactly what you are doing here. As for the second section, there are no tables present, and if there were, they would not considate information. (That sentence is granting an exception to navboxes, infoboxes, and sidebars plus a few other templates; most of these are not printed in text versions anyway, which is part of the reason for the guideline.)
It's pretty clear here that you are wikilawyering by attempting to grant yourself exceptions to community rules by ignoring the spirit of the guidelines (as well as list items 3 and 4 in the lead there). Without reason to, your local consensus of exactly 1 person is not convincing. -- Izno ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Undent, as I took something of a tangent on this point: "The section on the site provides information and images that allow the reader to get an understanding of the archaeology of the site." – Is that what Wikipedia is for? I'm asking the question seriously and as an aside to see if there are other ways to improve the offending sections. It seems to be very weighty, and if someone to work on this article to the point that it were a good article nominee, would that section seriously survive as is? I think the answer is no, and thereby there is probably a better way to present the information in that section. To show why it would not survive, it is pretty easy to say that it is currently unverified by reliable third party sources. Reducing the section down to an actual gallery with some text above would make a lot of sense. (Of course, keep in mind the warnings in WP:GALLERY—these sections are not always appropriate.) -- Izno ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Qumran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which is in Palestine, according to International Law the Westbank is illegally occupied by Israel
/info/en/?search=Palestinian_territories
Please remove classification as Israeli National Park, as this is illegal
Toatec ( talk) 19:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. See comment |
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which under International Law is considered illegally occupied by Israel. Even though Qumran is not in Israel, it, like the rest of the Westbank is controlled by the Israeli military, and since Qumran holds important historical Jewish treasures has been put under the administration of the Israeli Qumran National Park authority. The aim is to claim this historical site as Jewish, both physically as well in the minds of visitors to Qumran. Often treasures from Qumran are also illegally transported to West-Jerusalem, and placed in the Israeli Museum.
Sources:
Toatec ( talk) 22:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
A sentence in the first paragraph is ungrammatical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.65.118 ( talk) 16:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the section (3.3.2.1) needs editing. K. Lönnqvist in 2007 and 2009 publications did not claim to have access to the "complete" coin hoard. Nor were his photographs the first, having been preceded by A. Spijkerman, Marcia Sharabani and Aida Sulayman Arif.
Augustus Spijkerman and Henri Seyrig--two of the best experts alive--were invited by de Vaux to examine coins including silver coins hoarded at Qumran. These three (and others) agreed that the latest hoarded coin date was 9/8 BCE. Robert Donceel, who at the time had full access to the dig documents and on other matters differed with some interpretations of de Vaux, informed in French (Revue Biblique 99 [1992] 559-60 n.10) and in English (Methods of investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1994, 3-6) that there were non-Qumran coins mixed in the Amman museum. K. L. photographed some Amman silver coins and published in 2007 and 2009. Though the photos as published are not of superior quality (especially regarding a countermark, as noted by J. Ciecielag in Qumran Chronicle 15.3-4 (2007) 180), they suffice to show that, say, a disputed/intrustive coin of Trajan was quite well preserved, and would be an obvious identification to any coin expert. Ya'acov Meshorer, great numismatist, differed with de Vaux on, say, the date of destruction of Qumran, but wrote ("The Coins from Qumran," Israel Numismatic Journal 15 [2006] pages 20-21) "....This information leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the three jugs of Tyrian shekels were buried around 8 BCE, during King Herod's reign." Marcia Sharabani, who published Qumran coins at the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem (Revue Biblique [1980] page 275): "We can only say that the _terminus post quem_ of this hoard is the year 9/8 BCE." E.-M. Laperrousaz, an archaeologist at Qumran the season the hoard coins were found, often disagreed with de Vaux, but agreed (Qoumran, 1976, page 152) about the hoard date. J.T. Milik and F. M. Cross, Qumran diggers both, disagreed with de Vaux on a separate matter of dating, but their books--Dix ans de découvertes dans le désert de Juda (1957 p.66 n.2)/Ten years of discovery in the wilderness of Judea (1959 p. 102 n. 1) and Ancient Library of Qumran (1958 p. 44 n.15), respectively--agreed with de Vaux about the hoard date. Last but not least, Bruno Callegher, "Note su Augustus Spijkerman numismatico (1920-1973)," Liber Annuus, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 64 (2014) pages 615-647 documents some Qumran coin history contrary to some K. L. proposals. Apparently K. L. invited us to consider two options: either several experts missed several coin identifications or conspired to cover these up. Neither seems plausible. Coralapus Coralapus ( talk) 15:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Coralapus Coralapus
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Qumran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Additional documentation of the Qumran silver hoard coins is now available, showing the article discussion of silver coins is currently not reliable. Bruno Callegher, "The Coins of Khirbet Qumran from the Digs of Roland De Vaux: Returning to Henri Seyrig and Augustus Spijkerman," ch. 15, pages 221-237 in The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano, 2014, ed. Marcello Fodanzio, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 118, (Leiden: Brill, 2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Qumran. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Qumran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Wikipedia's article on Qumran, the introduction states, "The Hellenistic period settlement was constructed during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE) or somewhat later,[citation needed] was occupied most of the time until 68 CE..."
The citation needed for the information about when the Qumran settlement was founded could be from John J. Collins' "The Apocalyptic Imagination" pgs. 185-6 in the 3rd edition. Collins discusses the origins of the group there. G kode krakca ( talk) 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Israel has since invested heavily in the area to establish the Qumran caves as a site of "uniquely Israeli Jewish heritage". [2]
The citation for this source, Journal for Palestine studies, is considered by Wikipedia to be a bias source which should not be used when discussing the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Being this sentence is also from an opinion piece, I don't see how it has any place in a wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:2D9B:EDA5:E311:951D ( talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
References
In the notes on BCE & CE is states that it is equivalent dates it is not equal by any stretch of the imagination, BC is Before Christ which is EXACTLY why it is 2021 AD is the flip side of the same coin the EXACT reason it is 2021. Taking Christ out of the equation is offensive. Fortunately no matter what Christ is the reason it is 2021 and the reason this universe (single spoken sentence) exists. Sly1963 ( talk) 13:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
State of Israel is incorrectly named “State of Palestine”. 84.110.218.18 ( talk) 05:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It certainly is illustrative of your awareness that your links aren't directly related to the article when you remove the headings in the External Links section in order to reinsert the links. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 00:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
As an external link the Rohrhirsch site is rather unhelpful for the vast majority of Wiki users, especially not being in English. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Many readers arrive wondering about the relationship of the site to the scrolls, or, you would hope to add, if any (even if brought there, that's some relationship). About Qumran in historical context. For heaven's sake, the bibliography includes an article that asserts that all the scrolls came from Jerusalem only and no later than 63 BCE. Who thinks that? Do you even still? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yet I have not erased it... Though if you wish a shorter article, there are things that could fairly be cut... Some content could be moved to footnotes (e.g. Donceel encyclopedia confirmation that the silver coin hoard dates end 9/8). As you said, notes and links are for those who wish to go deeper; so don't cut off their avenues selectively, tendentiously. Why prefer imagined pottery exporters (with your misleading supposed "response" to Gunneweg 2010 presented falsely as if), trading post staff (despite poor tracks), perfumers, aristocrat vacationers, and other chimeras to the Essenes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Essenes, not de Vaux imposed, as your false myth has it, but the evident best option, from multiple streams of evidence, as discussed in my paper, for some of the time (how long debatable; and how many debatable). The censorship in some deletions is patent. Some articles you call "scholarly" are less so and less relevant than some content you censor, delete. Bracketing off and ignoring evidence, based on a priori commitments or ideologies, witholding it from others, is censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That numerous scholars from 1532 to 1938 proposed the Hebrew original of "Essenes" that was the then actually found at Qumran as a self-designation, as declaration of identity (an identity Sadducees and Pharisees and later Rabbis would not accept) according to numerous scholars since 1948 to 2010 is pretty relevant and belongs in this article. Coralapus ( talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Excluding it in the name of "neutrality" is bizarre. The Jannaeus article discusses archaeology more relevantly than other publications currently cited in the article and provides plausible documented historical context moreso that items currently cited in the article. Attempting to seal off Scrolls, Khirbeh, and Essenes merely distorts. Asking readers to piece relevant items together from other articles is disingenuous. Other articles are for further exploration, not islands to be kept separate, in a pretend world. Pre-63 Sadducees, reportedly, were a small conservative torah-only group that rejected resurrection and texts with named angels, who persuaded "few" (according to Josephus), hence do not fit. Coralapus ( talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You are not listening. Have you read Weston Fields DSS Full History? (with a transcription correction) In 1953 Brownlee identified the TR as Judah the Essene; Milik then agreed (later changing); then Carmignac and others. Jannaeus was proposed by Delcor, Allegro, Yadin and many others 9i.e. before me0. 1532--fifteen thirty-two--Ph. Melanchthon wrote that Essenes comes from the Hebrew root 'asah. I have more bibliography. These three observations are not original to me. They are major, relevant views that you disingenuously wish to exclude because they are not your views. Simple as that. Claiming neutrality is absurd. It is not wrong to say Rengstorf said X but others say Y. Much of the rest of the article is, necessarily, just like that. De Vaux gave X dates; others give Y or Z dates. What you delete, censor, is more relevant than much of what you do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC) And somebody *did* put Sadducees into the article, based on misunderstanding of MMT (failure to read J. Baumgarten JAOS) among others. Coralapus ( talk) 09:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
If you read the article indroduction you will be reminded about stuff about MMT and Sadducees that you prefer, in the text. You simply a priori want to include Sadducees or Zadokites and exclude Essenes. Your neutrality claim is bogus. I suggest all major views be included, including Essenes. You seem to wish to lead readers to regard Essenes as an expired view, when it is, in fact, live, and growing in evidence, unlike many of the marginal guesses that you allow to stay in the article. Coralapus ( talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus Accurate link annotations are preferable to inaccurate link groupings Coralapus ( talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, as already explained above, it is descriptive of the current state of discussion of Qumran to include these issues. Who lived at the site is obviously relevant. See e.g., Rengstorf p. 15, Alison Schofield, From Qumran to the Yahad (2009) p. 192-3, VanderKam, DSS Today 2nd ed. (2010), Craig Evans, Guide to the DSS (2010). Have you read Weston Fields DSS A Full History vol. 1? I recommend it. Coralapus ( talk) 10:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Again, mischaracterization of the material that you censor. It is reporting a major fact that several learned scholars (I have provided bibliography extensively) find the Hebrew original of the name "Essenes' in several scrolls found at Qumran, as a self-designation, which surely is relevant to the question whether Essenes lived there. Coralapus ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
That Essenes did live there, is, after all, the majority scholarly view, though you wish that hidden from readers. Coralapus ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Excluding this misleads readers, towards (no surprise) your preferred imagined history. No real scholar that I know accepts your proposal of Qumran history and scrolls no later than 63 BCE--no scholar. The link article includes more relevant discussion of Qumran in context, with extensive bibliography, than some links you mis-label as "scholarly." If your obscuring of facts stands, wikipedia readers will be ill served. Coralapus ( talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Perhaps it would be constructive to focus on one question at a time. Do you have a copy of Karl Rengstorf, Hirbet Qumran (1963) at hand? If so, it could save me typing text that helps explain why his views on Essenes (page 15) were important as his views on the Temple, both vis-a-vis Qumran. He uses claims about Temple as the pro side for his view and the Essene name for the con argument against the majority view. In each case readers can evaluate both arguments with their own pro or con evaluation. That's informing readers, passing along information, rather than keeping them in the dark. Coralapus ( talk) 10:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
I take it, then, that you don't have the Rengstorf book and are unable to read what he wrote on page 15 giving the quoted passage as his number 1 objection (of 5, should you ever care enough to read) to Essenes at Qumran. Rengstorf says the question is most relevant. You distort Rengstorf as well! Wow. By the way Jannaeus is linked at Bible and Interpretation--a location you have drawn on for other links, showing that another of your objections a pseudo-objection, attempt to hide your intention that the article be biased. You were close-minded and too fast to reject some suggested changes by Est.r, as well. Coralapus ( talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus Coralapus ( talk) 09:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
I do wonder whether, given your history of using aliases on sites that explicitly forbid that, and your use of names quite similar to names of real scholars--i.e your use on ane [ancient near east] and orion [Dead Sea Scrolls] list of "John J. Hays," when there is a real Hebrew Bible, John H. Hayes--I wonder whether Raphael Golb (another sockpuppet) was encouraged by your use of false names, indirectly or directly. (?) In either case, a reader of an article on Qumran should be informed of the majority view as well as the minority one. Just because you temporarily managed to exclude majority views elsewhere hardly recommends a repeat obscurantism. I have added links to other scholars Coralapus ( talk) 13:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Perhaps you think it is funny, but did you apologize to Prof. Hayes? And, if you care to reply: was Raphael Golb encouraged by your use of false names? Coralapus ( talk) 18:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
I asked a question; unanswered. Your unnecessary and inaccurate heading of "scholarly" excludes Qumran im Netz, while including another that is less so--hence, inaccurate. I put in a reference to a major question--the name Essene found at Qumran or not--surely relevant--with a VanderKam reference, which you erased. I will replace that major point of view of VanderKam, Isaak Jost, Melanchthon, Wm. Browmlee, C. Murphy and C. Evans and many others. You should not censor that. Not prevent readers from knowing the relevant *fact* that several scholars find the Hebrew of the name Essenes in Qumran scrolls, as a self-designation. Erasing that would be censorship, bias, distortion, obscurantism. Coralapus ( talk) 09:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)
About the caves, and why distinguishing upper and lower caves matters. There is an important question of which fragments came from which caves (and in some cases whether from Qumran caves or elsewhere). Weston Fields DSS Full History vol. 1 shows that there is good reason to think some of the currently-used cave assignments are mistaken. Fields also raises the question whether the "Cave One" scrolls actually came from two separate caves, only one of which was excavated by archaeologists. Hanan Eshel wrote that some writing on marl, currently assigned to Cave 11 makes more sense coming from a marl cave (Eshel, Hanan. "A Note on 11QPsd Fragment 1." Revue de Qumran 23/4 (2008) 529-531.. J. Milik proposed that a cave with jars, empty, unbroken was the "Timothy" cave; Stegemann had a different view. Now, scientific tests offer some possible hope of helping with provenance, matching fragments. There is more to be said about the differing caves, but one needs, at least, to notice the fact of difference, before progressing to further observations. If you would spend less time erasing and more time reading.... Coralapus ( talk) 10:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
[quoting Ihutchesson:] "Rengstorf's mention is a historical one about the site." Yes. And the site is Qumran. Hence relevant. He and numerous other scholars say it is relevant. The question is plain, though perhaps you do not know the answer. The link headings misled, on plain reading. What is different about a mention of an article by me compared to mention of an article by other editors (including you)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Not truly responsive, both. 1) You call a link to something by me advertising but a link to you (or another editor) non- advertising? Nonsense. 2) It is simple fact that if the name, in self-designation, is at the site, it is relevant. I present both points of view. Vermes, e.g., declares that Essenes were named by outsiders. I think he is mistaken, and has no evidence for that, but I don't attempt to hide his books from people. You are attempting to hide relevant facts from readers. 152.3.237.34 ( talk) 12:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus
Its not an archaeological site in Israel, its in the west Bank. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no real content difference between this section (Recent archaeological analysis) and the debate about the Q-E hypothesis, so I have integrated the Lonnqvist material from the former into the latter. The rest should eventually follow. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 06:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
don't think we need misleading sub-cats, but if we did them, i'd argue we do them in line with the dss article, which uses topical categories (not individuals' names). prolly not a bad idea to include all of the scholars who dealt with the topic as well, and not just highlight a few. -- XKV8R ( talk) 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Work redone in an effort to deal with some of the problems. Constructive changes will be accepted. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
While I have no real problem with the lengthy information regarding to the views of Qumran from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it doesn't belong in a section entitled "Later discussion..." regarding the analysis of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis. It should be placed prior to the major excavations of de Vaux early in the article and referred back to when dealing with Golb's re-presentation of the idea combined with other analyses. Bar-Adon was already placed in "Earlier issues", "earlier" being more around the time of the first wave of analysis from the time of de Vaux. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 03:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The complicated archaeological discussions regarding Qumran were rationalized as much as possible without removing significant content some time back. The Lönnqvist material was recently moved out of the "Later discussion: for a sectarian site" section and poorly relocated in the introduction to "Recent archaeological analysis". That section deals with specific archaeological issues, pottery, cisterns, coins, etc. Later discussion is used for stating the views of various scholars. That seems to be best suited for a discussion of the Lönnqvists' work. -- Ihutchesson ( talk) 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is this page listed under the categories "Archaeological sites in Israel | National parks of Israel | Visitor attractions in Israel" when Qumran is not in Israel? 143.252.80.100 ( talk) 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why use the term "West Bank" which of very modern provenance when Qumran is in the ancient region of Judea? At least put both, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.28.77 ( talk) 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
help for pronunciation would be nice..
GHUMRAN In Arabic language , some letters are differently pronounced in different regions : As I am Lebanese, even Catholic ,I read the Holy Coran and there we have a Surat Al Oomran ( آل عمران ) , who speaks about a tribe or a group parents of Virgin Mary . Then in connection with that people of Qumran. To pronounce ع Aayn Arabic it needs more effort than K or Q . So I think the original Aayn of the Coran was replaced by ق = to K' slowly since that time , but the Bedouins pronounce this letter as Gu , then Gumran or Ghumran . Any how , in The Coran we have two Sourats speeking , I think , about the same Qumran people : Surat Al Oomran and Surat Maryam ,it will be interesting to refer to them . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.115.158 ( talk) 04:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
ETYMOLOGY It would be nice to know the etymology of "Qumran". I found an LDS source that says it is an Arabic word, from the place name for Wadi Qumran. [1] I would like to be able to derive what the Hasmoneans may have called it, or the Herodians, or early Roman period inhabitants.
User Rolin Rolinbruno ( talk) 23:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This article focuses on the archaeology and implications of the site of Qumran. These naturally involve the DSS, but they are not the scope of the article, so do not deserve space in the lede. There is an article about the DSS clearly linked to here. There is no point in entering into polemic in the lede about the DSS. I have therefore removed the whole second paragraph. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I just removed this article from Category:Archaeological sites in Israel, which some have reinserted during the years. It's POV to say that places in the West Bank are in Israel. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 03:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have also removed a reference that calls Qumran an "Israeli" archaeological site. I've edited the sentence to indicate that it is "an archaeological site in the West Bank under the control of Israel". If this is inadequate, please discuss it here before considering an edit. Thanks. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the category. It is a factual error to say the area is in Israel. If the area had been annexed, then perhaps there would be an argument for having it alongside the West Bank category, but as it stands, Qumran is a non-sovereign area under military occupation - i.e. not "in Israel". Number 5 7 18:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the redundant collapsible bibliography section heading per MOS:COLLAPSE. it's not needed, and redundant to the heading directly above. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not a "politician". Please do not indirectly assert such. Even if any of us is wrong, changing the subject is not an incorrect strategy to assert that the choice to use collapsible tables (or any other method) is an incorrect choice of strategy to take.
"What you call "fluff and unnecessary" other people call "handy and helpful"." – I went and checked the article history and the talk page above. Your argument basically boils down to WP:ITSUSEFUL. You are the only one who has ever asserted that there is any value to collapsibility of entire sections. If you want to bring up "that it has not been removed prior by any one who has visited", all I have to point to is " there are literally millions of other articles which do not feature anything of this sort".
"We are not dealing with either scrolling lists or boxes." – The exact quotes in context you are looking for are "[…] boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions..." and "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text" (emphasis mine). In the context of the first quote, I would say that all of the sections you are asserting should use collapsed tables are all three of the items voiced in that sentence. It is clear that the prohibition is targeting exactly what you are doing here. As for the second section, there are no tables present, and if there were, they would not considate information. (That sentence is granting an exception to navboxes, infoboxes, and sidebars plus a few other templates; most of these are not printed in text versions anyway, which is part of the reason for the guideline.)
It's pretty clear here that you are wikilawyering by attempting to grant yourself exceptions to community rules by ignoring the spirit of the guidelines (as well as list items 3 and 4 in the lead there). Without reason to, your local consensus of exactly 1 person is not convincing. -- Izno ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Undent, as I took something of a tangent on this point: "The section on the site provides information and images that allow the reader to get an understanding of the archaeology of the site." – Is that what Wikipedia is for? I'm asking the question seriously and as an aside to see if there are other ways to improve the offending sections. It seems to be very weighty, and if someone to work on this article to the point that it were a good article nominee, would that section seriously survive as is? I think the answer is no, and thereby there is probably a better way to present the information in that section. To show why it would not survive, it is pretty easy to say that it is currently unverified by reliable third party sources. Reducing the section down to an actual gallery with some text above would make a lot of sense. (Of course, keep in mind the warnings in WP:GALLERY—these sections are not always appropriate.) -- Izno ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Qumran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which is in Palestine, according to International Law the Westbank is illegally occupied by Israel
/info/en/?search=Palestinian_territories
Please remove classification as Israeli National Park, as this is illegal
Toatec ( talk) 19:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. See comment |
Qumran is located in the Westbank, which under International Law is considered illegally occupied by Israel. Even though Qumran is not in Israel, it, like the rest of the Westbank is controlled by the Israeli military, and since Qumran holds important historical Jewish treasures has been put under the administration of the Israeli Qumran National Park authority. The aim is to claim this historical site as Jewish, both physically as well in the minds of visitors to Qumran. Often treasures from Qumran are also illegally transported to West-Jerusalem, and placed in the Israeli Museum.
Sources:
Toatec ( talk) 22:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
A sentence in the first paragraph is ungrammatical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.65.118 ( talk) 16:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the section (3.3.2.1) needs editing. K. Lönnqvist in 2007 and 2009 publications did not claim to have access to the "complete" coin hoard. Nor were his photographs the first, having been preceded by A. Spijkerman, Marcia Sharabani and Aida Sulayman Arif.
Augustus Spijkerman and Henri Seyrig--two of the best experts alive--were invited by de Vaux to examine coins including silver coins hoarded at Qumran. These three (and others) agreed that the latest hoarded coin date was 9/8 BCE. Robert Donceel, who at the time had full access to the dig documents and on other matters differed with some interpretations of de Vaux, informed in French (Revue Biblique 99 [1992] 559-60 n.10) and in English (Methods of investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1994, 3-6) that there were non-Qumran coins mixed in the Amman museum. K. L. photographed some Amman silver coins and published in 2007 and 2009. Though the photos as published are not of superior quality (especially regarding a countermark, as noted by J. Ciecielag in Qumran Chronicle 15.3-4 (2007) 180), they suffice to show that, say, a disputed/intrustive coin of Trajan was quite well preserved, and would be an obvious identification to any coin expert. Ya'acov Meshorer, great numismatist, differed with de Vaux on, say, the date of destruction of Qumran, but wrote ("The Coins from Qumran," Israel Numismatic Journal 15 [2006] pages 20-21) "....This information leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the three jugs of Tyrian shekels were buried around 8 BCE, during King Herod's reign." Marcia Sharabani, who published Qumran coins at the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem (Revue Biblique [1980] page 275): "We can only say that the _terminus post quem_ of this hoard is the year 9/8 BCE." E.-M. Laperrousaz, an archaeologist at Qumran the season the hoard coins were found, often disagreed with de Vaux, but agreed (Qoumran, 1976, page 152) about the hoard date. J.T. Milik and F. M. Cross, Qumran diggers both, disagreed with de Vaux on a separate matter of dating, but their books--Dix ans de découvertes dans le désert de Juda (1957 p.66 n.2)/Ten years of discovery in the wilderness of Judea (1959 p. 102 n. 1) and Ancient Library of Qumran (1958 p. 44 n.15), respectively--agreed with de Vaux about the hoard date. Last but not least, Bruno Callegher, "Note su Augustus Spijkerman numismatico (1920-1973)," Liber Annuus, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 64 (2014) pages 615-647 documents some Qumran coin history contrary to some K. L. proposals. Apparently K. L. invited us to consider two options: either several experts missed several coin identifications or conspired to cover these up. Neither seems plausible. Coralapus Coralapus ( talk) 15:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Coralapus Coralapus
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Qumran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Additional documentation of the Qumran silver hoard coins is now available, showing the article discussion of silver coins is currently not reliable. Bruno Callegher, "The Coins of Khirbet Qumran from the Digs of Roland De Vaux: Returning to Henri Seyrig and Augustus Spijkerman," ch. 15, pages 221-237 in The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano, 2014, ed. Marcello Fodanzio, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 118, (Leiden: Brill, 2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus ( talk • contribs) 09:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Qumran. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Qumran has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Wikipedia's article on Qumran, the introduction states, "The Hellenistic period settlement was constructed during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE) or somewhat later,[citation needed] was occupied most of the time until 68 CE..."
The citation needed for the information about when the Qumran settlement was founded could be from John J. Collins' "The Apocalyptic Imagination" pgs. 185-6 in the 3rd edition. Collins discusses the origins of the group there. G kode krakca ( talk) 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Israel has since invested heavily in the area to establish the Qumran caves as a site of "uniquely Israeli Jewish heritage". [2]
The citation for this source, Journal for Palestine studies, is considered by Wikipedia to be a bias source which should not be used when discussing the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Being this sentence is also from an opinion piece, I don't see how it has any place in a wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:2D9B:EDA5:E311:951D ( talk) 17:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
References
In the notes on BCE & CE is states that it is equivalent dates it is not equal by any stretch of the imagination, BC is Before Christ which is EXACTLY why it is 2021 AD is the flip side of the same coin the EXACT reason it is 2021. Taking Christ out of the equation is offensive. Fortunately no matter what Christ is the reason it is 2021 and the reason this universe (single spoken sentence) exists. Sly1963 ( talk) 13:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
State of Israel is incorrectly named “State of Palestine”. 84.110.218.18 ( talk) 05:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)