Talk:Norman Golb/Archive 1

Does it belong here?[edit]

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

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

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

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

Page fully protected[edit]

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

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

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

Neutrality, please[edit]

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

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

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

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

I wish to make a few points here:

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

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

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

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

and for the record...[edit]

"Phillip Kirby" (User_talk:Phillip_Kirby) and "David Saunderfeld" (User_talk:David_Saunderfeld) (above) are aliases of the puppet master.
see: http://manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2009-03-05.shtml
see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Critical_Reader/Archive

;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Edit done by University of Chicago IP Address (205.208.75.135)[edit]

The removal of the paragraph about the arrest of Norman Golb's son, Raphael Golb, was done by IP address 205.208.75.135. This IP address traces back to the University of Chicago. I'll pinpoint the building and forward the data. Info below. Destination IP in bold.

205.208.75.135
174.133.202.225 AS21844 THEPLANET-AS e1.ca.85ae.static.theplanet.com. 255 US Unix: 16:08:43.570 2 0 0 * 0.4 ms [+0ms] 74.55.252.121 AS21844 THEPLANET-AS et4-13.ibr02.hstntx2.theplanet.com. 0 miles [+0] 63 US [Router did not respond] 3 0 0 * 0.4 ms [+0ms] 70.87.253.166 AS21844 THEPLANET-AS et3-1.ibr01.hstntx2.theplanet.com. 0 miles [+0] 63 US [Router did not respond] 4 1 1 * 1.0 ms [+0ms] 12.88.102.229 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 unknown.att.net 0 miles [+0] 253 US [Router did not respond] 5 46 32 * 31 ms [+30ms] 12.122.147.138 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 cr2.hs1tx.ip.att.net. 0 miles [+0] 241 US [Router did not respond] 6 33 32 * 31 ms [+0ms] 12.122.28.157 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 cr1.dlstx.ip.att.net. 0 miles [+0] 242 US [Router did not respond] 7 46 37 * 31 ms [+0ms] 12.122.28.86 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 cr2.kc9mo.ip.att.net. 0 miles [+0] 243 US [Router did not respond] 8 44 33 * 31 ms [+0ms] 12.122.28.90 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 cr2.sl9mo.ip.att.net. 0 miles [+0] 244 US [Router did not respond] 9 32 32 * 31 ms [+0ms] 12.122.2.21 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 cr2.cgcil.ip.att.net. 0 miles [+0] 245 US [Router did not respond] 10 32 32 * 31 ms [+0ms] 12.122.132.5 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 gar1.cgcil.ip.att.net. 0 miles [+0] 247 US [Router did not respond] 11 36 33 * 31 ms [+0ms] 12.118.96.90 AS7018 ATT-INTERNET4 unknown.att.net 0 miles [+0] 246 US Unix: 16:08:44. 11 12 32 31 * 31 ms [+0ms] 206.166.9.209 AS6325 ILLINOIS-CENTURY unknown.illinois.net 0 miles [+0] 246 US [Router did not respond] 13 52 47 * 45 ms [+13ms] 206.166.126.142 AS6325 ILLINOIS-CENTURY unknown.illinois.net 0 miles [+0] 245 US Unix: 16:08:44. 90 14 * * * 45 ms [+0ms] [Unknown] [Unknown - Firewall did not respond] 0 miles [+0] 15 * * * 45 ms [+0ms] [Unknown] [Unknown - Firewall did not respond] 0 miles [+0] 16 45 * * 45 ms [+0ms] 205.208.75.135 AS160 U-CHICAGO-AS [Reached Destination]nsit-dhcp-205-208-075-135.uchicago.edu.

UChicago Identity by IP Address
UChicago Identity by IP Address Devices on the University of Chicago network are assigned hostnames in the "uchicago.edu" domain and IP addresses in any of the following ranges: 128.135.0.0/16 - addresses between 128.135.0.0 and 128.135.255.255 205.208.0.0/17 - addresses between 205.208.0.0 and 205.208.127.255 10.0.0.0/8 - addresses between 10.0.0.0 and 10.255.255.255 Any address in these ranges should be recognized as belonging to the University of Chicago community and granted access or privileges accordingly. Other private IP address space as specified by RFC1918 is not carried by the campus network except by arrangement with Data Networking. To avoid conflicting use of this space, we request you inform us if you make use of such IP space. Data Networking can be reached through email to noc@uchicago.edu. As a point of information, the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics assign hostnames in the "uchospitals.edu" domain and IP addresses of 165.68.0.0/16 - addresses from 165.68.0.0 through 165.68.255.255 64.107.48.0/23 - addresses from 64.107.48.0 through 64.107.49.255 Last updated: March 19. 2009

it's a dhcp address from The University of Chicago NSIT: Networking Services & Information Technologies, so think laptop, mac, or perhaps a vpn from the outside...

watch for bait/flame as well. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? The information does not belong in this article. It is completely irrelevant to the subject of this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new user alert: tellstories[edit]

Account created: 06:26, June 8, 2009 User:Tellstories (talk | contribs) new user account

1st and only edit: 06:27, June 8, 2009 Norman Golb

nyda notified -bc XKV8R (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]