Jump to content

Talk:Qumran/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Qumran

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 28 October 2023 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Qumran) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2

More Goranson editing

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)

Archaeologists consider texts as well as pots. The link headings were both unnecessary additional text and inaccurate as discussed above, Coralapus (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)coralapus
The article doesn't just talk about pots. It talks about the site of Qumran, which is a topic you don't seem to have a grasp of, as you keep inserting material that is about the contents of the scrolls and not what reflects the site. You take opportunity to insert material about the Essenes in places that are not helpful for the article, apparently only to heighten the argumentativeness of the article. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
to help readers know the current scholarly issues on the table, one cannot justly follow the bracketing off and ignoring evidence that one editor here tries to impose. Rohrhirsch provides data not available elsewhere online; it will help some; others can ignore it with no harm done. Do not censor views that you disagree with, especially when those views are held by many scholars. Coralapus (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)coralapus
Although I haven't touched the Rohrhirsch link, it is inaccessible to anyone but the specialist, making it of no use to the vastest majority of visitors to the article. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
A more balanced selection of links gives readers more options. "Orion" means nothing to a new reader, but with the annotation that it offers updated bibliography, it will be useful to some readers. If we can get past unjustified censorship, there are other aspects of the article that could be brought up to date. Coralapus (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)coralapus
"[b]alanced" here seems to mean "including links that have nothing directly to do with the article and are covered elsewhere in Wiki". As the links are found elsewhere here, talk of censorship is rhetorical. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 05:16, 5 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)

I haven't seen any better explanation. The alternative dating has little logic to it. Just look at the sham dating system based on palaeography. That was Cross at his most imaginative. Not one of his fixed dates has turned out to be fixed. Try now to date the practise alphabet. The Gezer markers were contradicted as soon as their use was proposed by Ronnie Reich. The palaeography is useless and that's the best offering to date scrolls due to C14 difficulties. 63 BCE at least offers something to test for: it can be falsified. All you need do is falsify it and you need more than a rehearsal of the Allegro castor oil cleaned 4QpPs.
But if you don't like the reference, you can always remove it. I didn't put it there and I don't believe one should put forward one's own materials. It is against the Wiki ethic. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 01:55, 7 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)

You've already tried this tangent. The Pole was responding to the work of Gunneweg and Balla, though not to the 2010 effort. What of his criticism doesn't deal with Gunneweg & Balla 2010??
Trading post, perfumers and Roman villa/"manor" house are all slightly different aspects of the one basic set of data. There is enough mundane manufacturing of materials unsuited for the purity and other issues regarding the Essenes to point against them. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 01:55, 7 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)

Which articles do you perceive as unscholarly? Those that are there are from different perspectives and are there because they are by scholars in the field. If you have better knowledge, an explanation would be helpful.
Nothing is being ignored. The links are found elsewhere on Wiki in places better suited, but here they aren't directly relevant. And I find it ironic that you are attempting to argue a priori commitments and ideologies, you who have tried to enforce an Essene only analysis of the scrolls and the site all across the web for the last 10 years. My aim here is to try to maintain the neutrality of the article. I don't go inserting materials that are one sided. Yours seems to be to infuse your Essene material at every chance. Your claim of censorship cashes out to my attempts to maintain the neutrality of the article. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 01:55, 7 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)

I know that you believe this conjecture, as you have put it forward as a truth, though Wikipedia calls it original research. That there is substantive evidence that the Essenes were mentioned at Qumran is based on your desires and attempts to inject the Essenes into the language of the scrolls based on the assumption that the name is related to the verb ($H, a view I pointed out to you many years ago is a conjecture that doesn't explain other uses of the same form (there are not just doers of good, but of bad as well). All of this is interesting in itself, but, being about the contents of the scrolls, nothing to do with the site of Qumran. I wish you would stop polemicizing this article for your own purposes. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 19:34, 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 merely publicizing your own non-status quo views with your Jannaeus article. Wikipedia specifically warns against doing so. Again, see WP:NOR.
Talking about the Sadducees per se (or any other Jewish party) here is irrelevant to the site of Qumran. We are interested in what can be said about the site and anything that is not focused on that is off topic, such as any dispute we may have about the Sadducees.
It appears to me as though you have deliberately been trying to polemicize the article, adding in purely argumentary issues, such as the tangent on Rengstorf and the Essenes. And you have been instrumentalizing Wiki to advertise your own literature. I don't think you are aware enough on Wikipedia policies. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 19:34, 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

You just don't get it. You persist in talking about Essenes here in an article to which Essenes are at best marginal interest. It is not necessarily wrong to say Rengstorf said X but others say Y. It is irrelevant here if that Y is not directly related to the site of Qumran. It doesn't matter how you package an apparently off-topic comment, unless you find a way to show that it is in fact on-topic you are still, well, off-topic. The topic is the site of Qumran, that includes the scrolls, the pots, the baths, the walls, all the artefacts, and theories about how they got there. What is in the scrolls is food for the Dead Sea Scrolls article. Your justifications for supporting the Essene cause doesn't fit the topic. The background info is just as meaningless here: stuff about Sadducees and MMT and whatever .. is .. nothing .. directly .. to .. do .. with .. the .. site .. of .. Qumran. It doesn't matter if you talk about limericks or Melanchthon. It is plainly, overtly, irrelevant to the site of Qumran. This process has gone on long enough. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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 groupingsCoralapus (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to further polemicize the article rather than seek consensus. The introduction to the article talks of Essenes and Sadducees. And so? You are trying to accuse me of bias so as to continue to express your own. Neutrality is a Wiki policy: if you can't attempt to abide by it, you shouldn't be editing. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 19:50, 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

Nobody knows who lived at the site, other than that they performed tasks that would certainly compromise purity. However, the Essenes are mentioned in the article in more relevant and meaningful places. You are pretending that it is not the case in order to insert Essenes for no benefit to the article. You are not responding to the problems: you are polemicizing. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Would you care to say the percentage of contemporary archaeologists who have published on Qumran, who have argued that Qumran was inhabited by Essenes? Still, the Essenes are clearly mentioned in this article. What you continue to ignore is the obvious fact that your particular insertion is gratuitous and has no value in the place you inserted except for argumentativeness. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Here's the third paragraph:
Many scholars believe the location to have been home to a Jewish sect, the Essenes being the preferred choice; others have proposed non-sectarian interpretations, some of these starting with the notion that it was a Hasmonean fort which was later transformed into a villa for a wealthy family or a production center, perhaps a pottery factory or similar.
The Essenes are plainly in the article. Your claim about me wishing to hide the Essenes from the article is just plain false. That is not the issue and you fail to see that you are degrading the article, by being your usual argumentative self, bent on pushing your agenda and incapable of trying to be neutral. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't understand you here. Are you saying that Cargill, Stacey, Ben-Ami and the Lönnqvists are not scholars? Are there cited works from a scholarly site not scholarly? How are they being mis-labeled as "scholarly"?? At least they are all scholars and they are talking about Qumran, unlike yourself who seems bent on perverting the Qumran article from being about the site of Qumran to your own pet theories. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

If you want to focus on one issue at a time, you should focus on one that is relevant. The reason Rengstorf is mentioned is because he was first to mention the idea that the scrolls came from Jerusalem, a historical accuracy, as later scholars mentioned after him in the article follow the notion of a Jerusalem origin. That's it. Your desire to include the kitchen sink has nothing to do with the reason Rengstorf is mentioned and is therefore irrelevant to the discourse. You are insisting beyond reason on inserting a tangent. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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)CoralapusCoralapus (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 scholarsCoralapus (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

(Mild laughter.) None of this deals with the problem of you attempting to use Wikipedia to aggrandize yourself and pervert a page about the site of Qumran to your own tangential ends. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Your accusation is both scurrilous and libelous. Be careful Stephen Goranson, when you make false accusations in public. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

Please stop cutting and pasting. If you want to be libelous, get on with it. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

You seem to be unaware that there is an article on the caves where the subject is dealt with there. The purpose of the sentence was to help set the context for Qumran. However, the material wasn't actually that useful to the site. But it matters not, other than the fact that the intro is more like an attic. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

[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)

Wiki is not here to do advertising for you and your materials. Your interest as an editor is in conflict with your activities as a source.
Of course, Rengstorf is relevant. That's why someone put him in and the reference has been preserved through consensus. Your going off the topic inserting the Essenes at that juncture serves no purpose in the article. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:04, 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

Location

Its not an archaeological site in Israel, its in the west Bank. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is political. Take it elsewhere. Instead of people playing games about whether it is West Bank and not Israel or vice versa, I put both in to stop this political disturbance. Qumran is considered to be in Israel and not in Palestinian territory as can be seen by its Israeli national park administration. Please don't do this again. Leave both West Bank and Israel and we stop the continual see-saw of "no, it's this", "no, it's that". -- Ihutchesson (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Recent archaeological analysis"

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)

Sub-categories

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)

The section is in a mess and has been that way for years. An incoherent mass of facts is no help to anyone. I signaled the sorry state back in Nov. 2009. Since then it's only got worse with a lot more argumentative material inserted.
Your revert doesn't help any process of systematizing the material and putting it in an order that makes it easily accessible. If the complaint is about names in the sub-categories, then propose some other heading. As it was there were six categories of which only two had names. Propose something better. Maintain a discourse. Reverting is not helpful, given the state of the article.
The revert was done without considering the order changes as well, so we are back to basically no order. Categorizing is a useful process. I'll have to separate the changes more so that a promiscuous revert doesn't lose things.
And I can't see any point to having a kitchen sink article: including all the scholars would drown the information content by moving towards overload. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:16, 6 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)

actually, wikipedia contributor/reviewer changes will be accepted.
this is not kitchen sink, this is a brief history of the fortress theory. more than 2 persons have argued 'fortress', and bar-adon and golb were not the first. scholars made contributions; they deserve mention. --XKV8R (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Early analysis of the site, the Qumran-Essene hypothesis and Qumran as a fortress

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)

i undid my own initial changes, and made a few minor improvements to your changes. i like what you did with the pre and post ecavation sections. i'll review your substantial changes and offer improvements here and there. thanx!! --XKV8R (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Lönnqvist material

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)

Israel?

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)

because while qumran sits in the west bank, like the herodion, qumran is managed by the israel antiquities authority. many of the dead sea scrolls are in the jerusalem shrine of the book, on the grounds of the israel museum. so whether one thinks it is an israeli site or a palestinian site, it is presently a national park in israel. this will indeed be an issue as israel and palestine move towards a real two-state solution. see: here for further reading on this debate. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the info. 143.252.80.100 (talk) 10:17, 21 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)

Pronunciation

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)

Removal of paragraph about DSS in lede

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)

POV to say that this is in Israel

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)

You get on a local bus in Jerusalem and you get off at Qumran. We leave both "West Bank" and "Israel" in order not to be POV. It has been that way in this article for many years. Having only one will be considered POV by those who support the other. We then get factional edit wars. Please leave both. Thank you for your patience. -- I.Hutchesson ► 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
How does that matter? That definition constitute original research. There is a consensus that places in the occupied territories are not in Israel. For example, we don't say settlements are in Israel. Saying otherwise would be POV. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Please don't get officialese when I provide you with a simple illustration of reality. And please do not ignore the rest of what I said. Do not try to rekindle an unnecessary dispute. This is not the place. If you want to contribute to this article, please be my guest, but don't try to score political points. Removing one of these categories is returning to POV. I will be happy to go to arbitration over the matter. Feel free to open a dispute if you want to assert POV. -- I.Hutchesson ► 13:50, 11 February 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)

It's god that you reverted the latest POV addition. But don't forget the 3RR.
You didn't "provide" anything near "a simple illustration of reality". Don't use such pathetic words. And it's irrelevant. I did not ignore the rest but explained to you why it's not acceptable to have that category. I explained to you what the consensus is. We can't start over everytime someone is not happy with it. We don't make it NPOV by adding POV. The fact is that the current situation is POV because places in the West Bank are not in Israel. It's the same with the Golan Heights. We don't use "in Israel"-categories but "in Israeli-occupied territories", "in Golan Heights" etc. Here is a recent case. This is another example where a category was proposed to get "in Israel" removed as it was thought to be unnecessary and would also not be POV. It was changed to "Israel" in parentheses to have it as a disambiguator. That is acceptable but using false statements about location is not acceptable. Would it still have "in Israel" in the title, it couldn't have to be used on places in the West Bank. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a typically intractable issue that Wiki frequently has to deal with. There are those who want to keep "in Israel" and remove "in the West Bank" and just as many vice versa. Trying to assert your preferences in the matter is POV in itself. All you are asserting is that your view is correct. The person who inserted "Israeli" before "archaeological site" was asserting his/her correctness. We are supposed to deal with the issue by finding consensus, but to do so with two opposing views leads either to protracted conflict or a functional compromise. The latter is acceptable, but involves accommodation of both views where necessary otherwise it is conflict leading to conflict resolution. Please bite the bullet and accommodate both positions. If you can't accept this what alternative solution can you offer that can lead to consensus? -- I.Hutchesson ► 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop making up things. It's not about my view but the world's view. West Bank is regarded as occupied. It is not a part of Israel. This is the consensus. Putting a category that says "in Israel" can't be accepted and the only solution is to remove it. Look at the examples I gave you. It's in the West Bank and we have a category for that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
So you have no solution other than to re-assert your view. Well, take it to arbitration. -- I.Hutchesson ► 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, it's not my view. You are still not seeing that it's you who are going against the consensus and inserting POV. As I've said, we can't start over everytime someone thinks it's fine to say places in the occupied territories are in Israel. You have gotten a number of explanations and examples. I see this as a NPOV violation and the next step will be based on that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Umm, the consensus that matters is the one among editors here on Wikipedia. And don't think that asserting your POV is an explanation. Go to arbitration if you insist. Explain to them that the article has maintained both to minimize conflict and you want to remove one. -- I.Hutchesson ► 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I advice you to read carefully before writing "umm" and thinking you are correcting me. Wikipedia reflects what the world writes and yes, there is a consensus here too. The explanations and examples I have given you is for here at Wikipedia. But it seems you haven't read them. And again, it's not my view. You trying to "minimize the conflict" and "add both sides" have made it POV. Again, this is not an arbitration case but about imposing the consensus. It's an NPOV violation. I will act based on this. -IRISZOOM (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I have brought it up here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:49, 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 57 18:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible bibliography

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)

MOS:COLLAPSE is of no help to your edit. You have no consensus to change the status quo. You have no grounds to make the edit you have. As it is you appear to be edit warring regarding something that has been in place for years. You need to put it back the way it was.
The collapsible sections were put in place to make easier the navigation of the article which has such a large reference section and bibliography -- I.Hutchesson ► 16:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
MOS:COLLAPSE actually does require that all portions of the article excepting some navigation items (navboxes, sidebars) be uncollapsed. Frietjes is entirely correct for removing them. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the article had the items uncollapsed. He is entirely incorrect. The reader had the choice of collapsing the sections in order to navigate the long article. -- I.Hutchesson ► 17:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Then the collapsing is fluff and unnecessary. There is a table of contents at the top of the article, and the references can be maneuvered simply by clicking the numbers/carots. That leaves only the section on the "site", which the navigation for that section can be improved a number of other standard ways. In particular, right now it looks rather like a WP:GALLERY, which I have to question whether is of high value to this article. --Izno (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Politicians usually don't admit they've made a mistake. They just change the subject and proceed. When you are in the middle of the article, it is easy to collapse a section, rather than return to the top and renavigate. What you call "fluff and unnecessary" other people call "handy and helpful". The section on the site provides information and images that allow the reader to get an understanding of the archaeology of the site. -- I.Hutchesson ► 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The removal is correct: "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists, image galleries, and image captions." --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
We are not dealing with either scrolling lists or boxes, but collapsible sections which are mentioned later in MOS:COLLAPSE. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
And I don't think anyone considers references and image galleries as "tables that consolidate information covered in the main text". --NeilN talk to me 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no indication that the collapsible sections are exclusive to tables, ie MOS:COLLAPSE doesn't say where collapsible sections cannot be used. -- I.Hutchesson ► 18:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
By your logic someone could make every section a collapsible section. The intent of MOS:COLLAPSE is pretty clear, no matter how you try to twist it. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum is a very dull instrument. But if somebody were to go to the extreme of making every section collapsible, if they followed MOS:COLLAPSE, there would be not much of a problem. It would just be overused and Wiki goes for moderation. Your "clear" bears no relation to MOS:COLLAPSE. -- I.Hutchesson ► 20:32, 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)

I did not assert that you were a politician. And I did not ask for a text wall of wikilawyering because you wrongly felt aggrieved. Clearly you are not here to contribute anything of substance to the article. Thank you for your thoughts but there is an article that needs work. -- I.Hutchesson ► 15:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

Qumran is located in the Westbank, which is in Palestine, according to International Law the Westbank is illegally occupied by Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories

Please remove classification as Israeli National Park, as this is illegal

Toatec (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be clarified. Obviously it is in what Israel considers its national park which is located on the West Bsnk. If Israel controls it we can say that while pointing out the implications of its geographical location. I'm not sure how to word that. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've deactivated the template for now. The article is about the historical site and not about Israel or the Palestinian territories. It looks like the current article deals with this issue by referring to Kayla consistently as a settlement; referring to the location as Kayla, West Bank; and labeling the map to indicate that the site falls in that political boundary. Possibly we could go on to describe Kayla in the lead as "near the Israeli settlement and kibbutz of Kalya, within the West Bank Palestinian territory." The sources talk about the park and I think trying to remove mention of the park is a bit Orwellian. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Older and ... well older you and others interested might want to look at the material added to my talk page last night. We are making some progress. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


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:

  1. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/11/bethlehem-tourism-christmas-israel-palestine-pilgrims.html#
  2. http://alt-arch.org/en/heritage/
  3. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/the-biblical-pseudo-archeologists-pillaging-the-west-bank/273488/
  4. http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/Unfolding%20the%20Secrets%20of%20the%20Copper%20Scroll%20at%20Qumran.html
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_territories_captured_by_Israel

Toatec (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Declined request edit rationale: 1. Not at all clear what sort of edits are desired. Specific changes to text allow for analysis & discussion. 2. Request edit now stale, over 3 months old. 3. Wikipedia (#5 in list) is not an acceptable source. 4. Is there really a Conflict of Interest? This request duplicates the earlier edit semi-protected request above. 5. So, please revise and resubmit so that discussion and consensus can develop. – S. Rich (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph

A sentence in the first paragraph is ungrammatical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.65.118 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Qumran silver coin hoard(s)

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. CoralapusCoralapus (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Coralapus Coralapus

Hello, Coralapus. This section that you mention on K. Lönnqvist's theories had been a terrible mess before I reedited it recently. It was just all jumbled up, and had serious problems with NPOV (neutrality). I fixed these problems, and added the Farhi critique. The new material that you offer here is of course relevant and may well be included in the article. This will further undermine Lönnqvist's proposals, that are already pretty far out IMHO. Y-barton (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional documentation of Qumran Silver Coins

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

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)

 Done Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by biased source

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)

Please provide some documentation of your claim that "Journal for Palestine studies, is considered by Wikipedia to be a bias source". Who has said this, and where? General Ization Talk 17:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
The Journal of Palestine Studies is a peer-reviewed journal published by the University of California Press. It is an unquestionably reliable source. nableezy - 17:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=12&chapid=48
  2. ^ Abu-Baker, Aseil; Farah, Marya (17 April 2020). "Established Practice: Palestinian Exclusion at the Dead Sea". Journal of Palestine Studies. 49 (2): 48–64. doi:10.1525/jps.2020.49.2.48.

BCE CE

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)

Inaccurate Caption of Image

State of Israel is incorrectly named “State of Palestine”. 84.110.218.18 (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The highlighted part on the map is State of Palestine; note that the title is not set on this page, but rather on Module:Location_map/data/Palestinian_territories. Klbrain (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qumran/Archive_2&oldid=1182252027"