This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Shapira Scroll appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 April 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
@ GordonGlottal, 175.37.202.190, Amplifysound, WindSandAndStars, Yoninah, LacrimosaDiesIlla, and Onceinawhile:
And it's essential! A separate, clear section on what the strips look(ed) like, are likely to be, and contain. This goes to the core of the topic, and is the very object of the article. As of now, the article is just a "whodunnit", a story of what happened (and even that without mentioning the 5 years they were kept in a safe before being reassessed and brought to Europe). Soon enough, only few people will care strictly about the detective story, and wish to know WHAT the strips actually WERE, as objects and the possible readings of the text(s).
Of course, this all with all the needed caveats, counter-theories etc., but the user needs to quickly understand what it's all about, not just "old stuff with some religious writing on it that doesn't fit what's printed in my Bible back home." As always, first clarify the WHAT, and only then the story & possible interpretations. Nobody really has the patience to read the whole article the way it's written now. If one does have the patience and curiosity, they'd go to the more systematic, online published sources. Wiki at its best has the advantage of giving a quick, well summarised essence. Here it doesn't. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 11:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Arminden If you read the section below you'll see that, while Ginsburg took the longest (3 weeks) to issue a finding, everyone else denounced it immediately. By the time it reached the UK in the first place, Schlottman, Delitzch, Strack, Lepsius, Sachau, Schrader, Dillmann, Erman, Steinschneider, Guthe, Meyer, Noldeke, and Kautsch had already decided it was fake (though Guthe and Meyer wouldn't publish for another week). Fright (internally) and Neubauer published against in the first week of the exhibition, and Conder was known to think it fake from before the British Museum ever saw it. Even to British Museum visitors who wanted to see it, it was known to be suspicious -- Ginsburg was careful to note in his statements that he hadn't decided yet, and when he did reports said he'd been hinting for a while. Gladstone spent his visit interrogating Shapira. Ganneau denounced it as soon as he saw it, though by that point it had been exhibited for a while. In the entire history of it, the only one who apparently took any time was Ginsburg, who had a different responsibility as designated by the museum and was enjoying massive press attention.
And no one knows how Mason got it, as indeed no one knew in the nineteenth century. It's not true to say he was the "actual purchaser." The lede is extremely lopsided right now and includes uncited information not found below -- it is not the right place for historiography.
GordonGlottal ( talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Amplifysound Not having edited that part before, I don't think your version is quite right either? At first glance לא תשנא . את. אחך . בל[בבך] Do not hate your brother in your heart is in fact additional, it just combines 1+2 taam-ha-elyon-style (among other changes) so the number is the same. I thought "eleventh commandment" in quotes was OK. GordonGlottal ( talk) 04:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Still necessary on this page IMO: The debate over whether Shapira forged them himself. GordonGlottal ( talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Amplifysound Which exactly are consistent? This hasn't been covered except by Rabinowicz and Goshen-Gottstein but I don't think you're right that it's subjective. (1) makes the unique claim of a tomb, (2) makes the unique claims that Selim was involved and that they were offered and left for him at the shop, (3) makes the unique claims that they first met at the Sheik's house and that they were hidden in bundles of rugs, (4) makes the unique claims that they were thrown into fire and that they were acquired through an unnamed intermediary "who would sell his own mother-in-law", (5) makes the unique claim of a reward offered, (6) makes the unique claims that a mummy was found and they came from the same site as the Moabitica. Each is in conflict with all the others, even without discussing the conflicts that are 3-3 etc. instead of 1-5. GordonGlottal ( talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A) There were scrolls in a cave with a body
B) In the 1860s, some Arabs hid in a cave and found the material
C) A Sheik meets Shapira on other business and mentions that he knows other people who know about the strips
D) The following day there's a dinner in which Shapira presses for more information and makes clear that he wants to buy these manuscripts
E) After the Sheik told people he knew that Shapira wanted to buy them, a man from Adachaje approached Shapira's store and left some of the manuscripts
F) Later, the man dropped off the rest of the manuscripts.
Then nothing of that is contradictory with the six citations here. Honestly, it reads like you're intent on proving that this is a forgery, not analyzing the evidence dispassionately. I think the line "Shapira's account of the discovery of the scroll varied at times and the differences between them have been used[1] as evidence of forgery" is fair and reasonable - if it has any imbalance, it tilts irrationally toward the forgery thesis.
Big picture, I don't really understand why this article has these 6 extensive quotations. It's very odd, and it imbalances the article. For example, there's nothing in the article about the content of the material, other than the Ginsburg translation. Considering that the content of the text is consistently the subject of major publications about the material, that's a massive gap. Amplifysound ( talk) 19:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "Still necessary on this page IMO: The debate over whether Shapira forged them himself. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC) " -- I think it probably makes sense to 1) have a whole section about the forgery history, it could even be the first section, 2) condense the "discovery" section into one single paragraph more or less laying out the A-F that I wrote above, with a note that Shapira told the story of the discovery at different times to different people in different ways, and that some people have used that as evidence that it's a forgery. Amplifysound ( talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Gordonglottal is undoing legitimate edits and is taking sides in a scholarly dispute. 2A03:C5C0:107D:EE68:8539:B6C9:E0EC:C14 ( talk) 13:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Opinions held by chaired professors at highly regarded institutions, published by top academic publishers, and supported by world renowned scholars are not "fringe". The added material needs to be restored and the "fringe" judgement expunged.
There is obviously no consensus in the field. The (post-Dershowitz) naysayers (Rollston, Knohl [who changed his mind], Richelle, Holmstedt, Hendel, and postdocs Press and Suchard) are no more highly regarded than public proponents of the theory (senior scholars Dershowitz, Pat-El, Sass, Gesundheit, Finkelstein, Bar Ilan, and others). It is not for you to declare one or the other “minor” and “decidedly fringe” and deprive readers of other points of view and sources. Mohr Siebeck and ZAW published Dershowitz after peer review; Semitica and BAR published both sides. This is scholarly debate at its best. Arminden also disagrees with your POV assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.12.122 ( talk) 09:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This page has been vandalized again with the removal of citations of modern scholarship that don't jive with the subjective beliefs of one editor. If someone wants to add additional details about the debate, go ahead, but don't destroy the work of those with whom one disagrees. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 ( talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Every sentence in the improperly deleted material was sourced. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 ( talk) 20:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
J. Philip Hyatt, Shemuel Yeivin, Helen Jefferson, Cyrus H. Gordon, Hartmut Stegemann, Na’ama Pat-El, Benjamin Sass, Israel Finkelstein, Shimon Gesundheit, Meir Bar Ilan are all very prominent scholars. Deleting sourced references to their views is groundless and biased. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 ( talk) 20:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, significant minority views must be properly represented, and it is altogether unclear which is the minority view here. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 ( talk) 21:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Unlike you, even Prof. Ron Handel, who believes they’re forgeries, doesn’t consider the opposite opinion to be “fringe.” He writes (in Rollston’s blog): Idan Dershowitz shows in his book that he’s an excellent scholar. He has mastered the data and research, and makes a bold and plausible argument for authenticity. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:48DD:4941:93A6:495E ( talk) 14:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced sentence repeatedly without explanation other than claiming it's biased and unsourced:
81.5.56.95 ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced half-sentence repeatedly without explanation other than claiming it's fringe and unsourced:
81.5.56.95 ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced sentence repeatedly without explanation other than saying he disagrees:
81.5.56.95 ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Another example of @GordonGlottal deleting a sourced sentence without real explanation:
You're entitled to your opinion but not to delete what doesn't jibe, as in:
All the sourced material needs to be restored now, regardless of any counterarguments. 81.5.56.95 ( talk) 07:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This threat by @GordonGlottal at User talk:2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 is out of place and erroneously refers to well-sourced content as "uncited" (see above):
81.5.56.95 ( talk) 07:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The Hebrew page on Shapira מוזס וילהלם שפירא has a lengthy discussion of modern arguments pro and con. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E890:25B2:296F:2E4D ( talk) 09:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Refusal of third opinion. Good afternoon. I am Springnuts an uninvolved editor. I have at least for the time being - refused the 3O requested by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:EC5E:2F28:2FFA:4887. 3O is suitable wherer only two editors are involved; however in this case one or more editors are editing as IP addresses or as (I believe) UUIDs. If only one other user is involved apart from GordonGlottal please would they create an account and re-submit the 3O request. Creating an account is good practice in any case. With all good wishes, Springnuts ( talk) 16:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Chemical tests of the originals at the BM already determined that the black stuff was not in fact asphalt. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E45B:2C33:10B5:7553 ( talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Tov gives a handful of examples of scriptio continua from Qumran, so the statement "a style never discovered in other Hebrew manuscripts" is erroneous. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E45B:2C33:10B5:7553 ( talk) 21:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I see no justification for referring to the scholarly opinions supporting the possibility of authenticity as “fringe”. I suggest either justifying that assessment here by WP standards, considering the peer-reviewed academic publications in favor of authenticity (Dershowitz, Sass, and others), or else someone should remove the claim that they are “decidedly fringe”, and restore the inclusion of those opinions. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:4947:511B:A228:EFF4 ( talk) 06:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Shapira Scroll appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 April 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
@ GordonGlottal, 175.37.202.190, Amplifysound, WindSandAndStars, Yoninah, LacrimosaDiesIlla, and Onceinawhile:
And it's essential! A separate, clear section on what the strips look(ed) like, are likely to be, and contain. This goes to the core of the topic, and is the very object of the article. As of now, the article is just a "whodunnit", a story of what happened (and even that without mentioning the 5 years they were kept in a safe before being reassessed and brought to Europe). Soon enough, only few people will care strictly about the detective story, and wish to know WHAT the strips actually WERE, as objects and the possible readings of the text(s).
Of course, this all with all the needed caveats, counter-theories etc., but the user needs to quickly understand what it's all about, not just "old stuff with some religious writing on it that doesn't fit what's printed in my Bible back home." As always, first clarify the WHAT, and only then the story & possible interpretations. Nobody really has the patience to read the whole article the way it's written now. If one does have the patience and curiosity, they'd go to the more systematic, online published sources. Wiki at its best has the advantage of giving a quick, well summarised essence. Here it doesn't. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 11:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Arminden If you read the section below you'll see that, while Ginsburg took the longest (3 weeks) to issue a finding, everyone else denounced it immediately. By the time it reached the UK in the first place, Schlottman, Delitzch, Strack, Lepsius, Sachau, Schrader, Dillmann, Erman, Steinschneider, Guthe, Meyer, Noldeke, and Kautsch had already decided it was fake (though Guthe and Meyer wouldn't publish for another week). Fright (internally) and Neubauer published against in the first week of the exhibition, and Conder was known to think it fake from before the British Museum ever saw it. Even to British Museum visitors who wanted to see it, it was known to be suspicious -- Ginsburg was careful to note in his statements that he hadn't decided yet, and when he did reports said he'd been hinting for a while. Gladstone spent his visit interrogating Shapira. Ganneau denounced it as soon as he saw it, though by that point it had been exhibited for a while. In the entire history of it, the only one who apparently took any time was Ginsburg, who had a different responsibility as designated by the museum and was enjoying massive press attention.
And no one knows how Mason got it, as indeed no one knew in the nineteenth century. It's not true to say he was the "actual purchaser." The lede is extremely lopsided right now and includes uncited information not found below -- it is not the right place for historiography.
GordonGlottal ( talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Amplifysound Not having edited that part before, I don't think your version is quite right either? At first glance לא תשנא . את. אחך . בל[בבך] Do not hate your brother in your heart is in fact additional, it just combines 1+2 taam-ha-elyon-style (among other changes) so the number is the same. I thought "eleventh commandment" in quotes was OK. GordonGlottal ( talk) 04:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Still necessary on this page IMO: The debate over whether Shapira forged them himself. GordonGlottal ( talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Amplifysound Which exactly are consistent? This hasn't been covered except by Rabinowicz and Goshen-Gottstein but I don't think you're right that it's subjective. (1) makes the unique claim of a tomb, (2) makes the unique claims that Selim was involved and that they were offered and left for him at the shop, (3) makes the unique claims that they first met at the Sheik's house and that they were hidden in bundles of rugs, (4) makes the unique claims that they were thrown into fire and that they were acquired through an unnamed intermediary "who would sell his own mother-in-law", (5) makes the unique claim of a reward offered, (6) makes the unique claims that a mummy was found and they came from the same site as the Moabitica. Each is in conflict with all the others, even without discussing the conflicts that are 3-3 etc. instead of 1-5. GordonGlottal ( talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A) There were scrolls in a cave with a body
B) In the 1860s, some Arabs hid in a cave and found the material
C) A Sheik meets Shapira on other business and mentions that he knows other people who know about the strips
D) The following day there's a dinner in which Shapira presses for more information and makes clear that he wants to buy these manuscripts
E) After the Sheik told people he knew that Shapira wanted to buy them, a man from Adachaje approached Shapira's store and left some of the manuscripts
F) Later, the man dropped off the rest of the manuscripts.
Then nothing of that is contradictory with the six citations here. Honestly, it reads like you're intent on proving that this is a forgery, not analyzing the evidence dispassionately. I think the line "Shapira's account of the discovery of the scroll varied at times and the differences between them have been used[1] as evidence of forgery" is fair and reasonable - if it has any imbalance, it tilts irrationally toward the forgery thesis.
Big picture, I don't really understand why this article has these 6 extensive quotations. It's very odd, and it imbalances the article. For example, there's nothing in the article about the content of the material, other than the Ginsburg translation. Considering that the content of the text is consistently the subject of major publications about the material, that's a massive gap. Amplifysound ( talk) 19:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "Still necessary on this page IMO: The debate over whether Shapira forged them himself. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC) " -- I think it probably makes sense to 1) have a whole section about the forgery history, it could even be the first section, 2) condense the "discovery" section into one single paragraph more or less laying out the A-F that I wrote above, with a note that Shapira told the story of the discovery at different times to different people in different ways, and that some people have used that as evidence that it's a forgery. Amplifysound ( talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Gordonglottal is undoing legitimate edits and is taking sides in a scholarly dispute. 2A03:C5C0:107D:EE68:8539:B6C9:E0EC:C14 ( talk) 13:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Opinions held by chaired professors at highly regarded institutions, published by top academic publishers, and supported by world renowned scholars are not "fringe". The added material needs to be restored and the "fringe" judgement expunged.
There is obviously no consensus in the field. The (post-Dershowitz) naysayers (Rollston, Knohl [who changed his mind], Richelle, Holmstedt, Hendel, and postdocs Press and Suchard) are no more highly regarded than public proponents of the theory (senior scholars Dershowitz, Pat-El, Sass, Gesundheit, Finkelstein, Bar Ilan, and others). It is not for you to declare one or the other “minor” and “decidedly fringe” and deprive readers of other points of view and sources. Mohr Siebeck and ZAW published Dershowitz after peer review; Semitica and BAR published both sides. This is scholarly debate at its best. Arminden also disagrees with your POV assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.12.122 ( talk) 09:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
This page has been vandalized again with the removal of citations of modern scholarship that don't jive with the subjective beliefs of one editor. If someone wants to add additional details about the debate, go ahead, but don't destroy the work of those with whom one disagrees. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 ( talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Every sentence in the improperly deleted material was sourced. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 ( talk) 20:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
J. Philip Hyatt, Shemuel Yeivin, Helen Jefferson, Cyrus H. Gordon, Hartmut Stegemann, Na’ama Pat-El, Benjamin Sass, Israel Finkelstein, Shimon Gesundheit, Meir Bar Ilan are all very prominent scholars. Deleting sourced references to their views is groundless and biased. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 ( talk) 20:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, significant minority views must be properly represented, and it is altogether unclear which is the minority view here. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 ( talk) 21:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Unlike you, even Prof. Ron Handel, who believes they’re forgeries, doesn’t consider the opposite opinion to be “fringe.” He writes (in Rollston’s blog): Idan Dershowitz shows in his book that he’s an excellent scholar. He has mastered the data and research, and makes a bold and plausible argument for authenticity. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:48DD:4941:93A6:495E ( talk) 14:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced sentence repeatedly without explanation other than claiming it's biased and unsourced:
81.5.56.95 ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced half-sentence repeatedly without explanation other than claiming it's fringe and unsourced:
81.5.56.95 ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@GordonGlottal deleted this sourced sentence repeatedly without explanation other than saying he disagrees:
81.5.56.95 ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Another example of @GordonGlottal deleting a sourced sentence without real explanation:
You're entitled to your opinion but not to delete what doesn't jibe, as in:
All the sourced material needs to be restored now, regardless of any counterarguments. 81.5.56.95 ( talk) 07:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This threat by @GordonGlottal at User talk:2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:40F4:24CF:B9A4:64D6 is out of place and erroneously refers to well-sourced content as "uncited" (see above):
81.5.56.95 ( talk) 07:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The Hebrew page on Shapira מוזס וילהלם שפירא has a lengthy discussion of modern arguments pro and con. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E890:25B2:296F:2E4D ( talk) 09:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Refusal of third opinion. Good afternoon. I am Springnuts an uninvolved editor. I have at least for the time being - refused the 3O requested by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:EC5E:2F28:2FFA:4887. 3O is suitable wherer only two editors are involved; however in this case one or more editors are editing as IP addresses or as (I believe) UUIDs. If only one other user is involved apart from GordonGlottal please would they create an account and re-submit the 3O request. Creating an account is good practice in any case. With all good wishes, Springnuts ( talk) 16:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Chemical tests of the originals at the BM already determined that the black stuff was not in fact asphalt. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E45B:2C33:10B5:7553 ( talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Tov gives a handful of examples of scriptio continua from Qumran, so the statement "a style never discovered in other Hebrew manuscripts" is erroneous. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:E45B:2C33:10B5:7553 ( talk) 21:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I see no justification for referring to the scholarly opinions supporting the possibility of authenticity as “fringe”. I suggest either justifying that assessment here by WP standards, considering the peer-reviewed academic publications in favor of authenticity (Dershowitz, Sass, and others), or else someone should remove the claim that they are “decidedly fringe”, and restore the inclusion of those opinions. 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:4947:511B:A228:EFF4 ( talk) 06:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)