This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Museums Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia. National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some of the page history has gone missing, there were edits between 2012 and 1 July 2015. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I have previously undone the addition of a list of museum incidents, which are not directly related to this article, but it has been restored. Input welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 23:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply

The removal was correct. What other museums have done is irrelevant. Those insisting on re-inserting this material should instead create an article on museums and looted artifacts -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ Danlidwin: More information related to the disputed changes: WP:NPOVN discussion (this is an archive which should not be edited, but a new thread may be opened at WP:NPOVN if needed). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The entire structure of this article seems largely biased. Normally there is a section for "criticisms" and/or "controversies" but it seems some editors have taken it upon themselves to make sure that criticisms or controversies are brought up in every section even if they're only tangentially related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asburysouthpaw ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't see that. The "History" section has no criticisms. The "Projected exhibits" section has no criticisms. The "Food services" section has no criticisms. The "Board and leadership" section has no criticisms. The "Gallery" section has no criticisms. The introduction and the "Reception" sections mention relevant controversies, as they should. peterl ( talk) 03:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I, too, see no evidence that the "entire structure" of the article is biased, or any part of it, for that matter. Actually, many editors favor incorporating criticism into the article rather than creating separate criticism/controversy sections. So, Asburysouthpaw, I think that you need to be far more specific with your criticisms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I can't say I see it either. Additionally, the consensus now seems to be to not separate the criticisms into a separate section. - SummerPhD ^v2.0 12:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with the responders. Wikipedia preferred style is to not have criticism or controversy sections. If the museum has attracted notable criticisms that can be reliably sourced, it does not violate NPOV to inclued them in the article. Ashmoo ( talk) 12:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This article contains many libelous and in a few cases, outright falsified statements that is unbecoming of any wiki article. These include:

• representatives of Hobby Lobby organized archaeological looting in Iraq to present smuggled artifacts to the Museum of the Bible

This is false on two levels, first there is no proof whatsoever that representatives "organized archaeological looting". There is a LARGE difference between receiving stolen antiquities and participating in the actual theft. Read the citations that were offered to see the difference between what the article says the citations say and what the citations actually say.

• Secondly, the Museum was not a party to the lawsuit and there has emerged no proof that these particular items were intended to be part of the collection. The articled insinuation to the contrary cannot be justified in any way as there is no evidence for it.

I have removed the libelous statements and have put this article on my watch list. Eric the fever ( talk) 00:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

This is the edit in question.

Before looking at any of the content questions, two points: "libelous" and "no proof" are not issues here. Wikipedia does not decide what is true or false, only what is verifiable. If independent reliable sources said the Museum of the Bible is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say the same.

The source you removed, NBC News, is unquestionably an independent reliable source. Whatever it says is verifiable.

The source you added, the museum's website, is not an independent source. It is a primary source, usable for only basic, noncontroversial statements of fact (e.g., address, date established, etc., unless disputed by independent reliable sources).

This leaves us with questions of content.

You removed "In the year before its launch, however, it had to field questions about the acquisition of its collection, including a federal case over smuggled Iraqi antiquities and thousands of clay artifacts." Did the museum have to respond to these questions? The https://web.archive.org/web/20171117003526/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/museum-bible-gears-opening-washington-amid-propriety-questions-n821336 source cited] clearly supports the statement that the museum had to answer question about the sources of items and the federal case.

You retitled the "Hobby Lobby smuggling scandal" section "2010 Clay bulla seizure". The main article for the section is Hobby Lobby smuggling scandal. The name of the section should match the title of the main article. If you feel that article should be retitled, please discuss the issue there.

You removed the well supported fact that "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement returned 3800 items seized from Hobby Lobby to Iraq."

You added the museum's opinion as them "noting". This casts their statement as a fact. I can note that today is Thursday. I cannot "note" that chocolate is the best favor of ice cream. You will need an independent reliable source to include what the museum says of their involvement in the situation. - SummerPhD ^v2.0 02:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Perhaps I was not as clear as I thought. The citation offered for the claim that "representatives of Hobby Lobby organized archaeological looting in Iraq to present smuggled artifacts to the Museum of the Bible" was sourced to this citation. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-returns-thousands-ancient-artifacts-seized-hobby-lobby-iraq

Check reference 32

That citation does not, ANYWHERE, even imply that "Hobby Lobby organized archaeological looting in Iraq". The statement in the actual source says absolutely nothing on looting or stealing, merely that the artifacts were being returned by ICE.

You will not find anywhere, a reliable source claiming what this article claims because that is libel under US law. There is an enormously large difference between POSSESSING stolen property and STEALING property. That is why news articles about, lets say stolen cars, never say "xxx person was alleged to have stolen a car" unless there is proof upfront that the person in question stole the car. The stories say, "xxx person was allegedly in possession of a stolen car." News organizations have gotten sued for mislabels like the ones in this article. Eric the fever ( talk) 03:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I haven't time, but this article needs upgrading to mention that five of its dead sea scrolls have been identified as fakes. Moriori ( talk) 02:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Citation? peterl ( talk) 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

That Robby Hobby. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Was just going to post this link! TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply