Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls/Archive 3

Is This Exhibit Of The Dead Sea Scrolls Worth Mention?

I was just at an exhibit at the Milwaukee Public Museum. http://www.mpm.edu/dead-sea-scrolls/ It was very good, and I just caught it since it is almost done at this museum. Should it be added to the article the Dead Sea Scrolls have been exhibited there? Goodyfun (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think so. This is done. Eagletennis (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls template

I've constructed a Dead Sea Scrolls template to provide easy access for all DSS related articles. It's only attached to the Qumran article at present so that it can be seen and recommendations made before it gets attached to more articles. I look forward to constructive suggestions on the template's discussion page. Thanks.--Ihutchesson (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully no feedback means that the template is relatively acceptible as is, so I'm attaching it to this article.--Ihutchesson (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed -- Physical Details

I removed the following sentence from where it was located in the text for its purely argumentative aim.

Recent scientific evidence published by Ira Rabin, Oliver Hahn, Timo Wolff, Admir Masic, and Gisela Weinberg, however, shows that the ink from The Thanksgiving Scroll uses water taken from the Dead Sea thereby demonstrating a link between the Dead Sea region and at least some of the scrolls.

However, there should be a place for such information in the article for physical information about the scrolls. I note on the same subject that there isn't any information about the various C14 tests on the scrolls. If no-one else gets around to it, I'll have to attempt it.--Ihutchesson (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article needs a section on scientific examination that includes both the C14 stuff, the ink analysis stuff (neutrally reported, of course) and anything else out there in good sources. Zero^talk 02:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new page which deals with 14C dating of the scrolls, Carbon Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is currently accessible only from the nav bar at the bottom of DSS pages. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The paper about ink: On the Origin of the Ink of the Thanksgiving Scroll (1QHodayot^a). Rabin, Ira; Hahn, Oliver; Wolff, Timo; Masic, Admir; Weinberg, Gisela. Dead Sea Discoveries, Volume 16, Number 1, 2009 , pp. 97-106. Abstract: "In this study we demonstrate the possibility to identify the production area of the scrolls, coupling non-destructive quantitative analysis of trace elements to spectroscopic investigation of the inks. This approach, that allowed us to determine the Dead Sea area as origin of 1QHodayot^a, is of general validity." Zero^talk 05:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A summary of physical examination methods: The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Sciences and New Technologies; Broshi, Magen; Dead Sea Discoveries, Volume 11, Number 2, 2004, pp. 133-142. Zero^talk 06:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

New pages

I really feel that the "Origin of the Scrolls" section should link out to separate pages giving a lot more detail on each. The current few lines on will not satisfy many readers, I think (5 lines is next-to-nothing, and why does the crackpots-and-nutters Qumran-as-christians have more space than Qumran-as-Zadokites?) It will have the other advantages of tidying up (sometimes circularly) speculative material the articles on the individual groups, and give space to discuss the problems behind each of the theories. Also, this article doesn't mention the conflict and divisions within the corpus (doctrinal/linguistic/dates/genres etc) and how that complicates the discussion of origins. Yes, lots of work! I'd make a start myself, but I know my limitations :) Would be happy to help fill in some blanks when/if the pages are started, though 93.182.179.45 (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yahad Ostracon

I've just added an article on the Yahad Ostracon, accessible from the nav-bar. As it is a controversial subject, I'd appreciate any constructive corrections. Thanks. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

on changes to the christian origin theory

The reality is that there are only a few scholars that believe there is any relation between the dss and xnty. an overwhelming majority (represented by the word 'most') of scholars reject any xn connection whatsoever. the very fact that this section names only three scholars in the whole of history of dss scholarship of hundreds and hundreds of dss scholars makes this point emphatically! o'callaghan-martínez, eisenman, and thiering. that's it. maybe a few other minor players. this is a minority. using 'some' to describe those that reject the connection is intentional weaseling designed to promote the xn-conection. again, the overwhelming majority of scholars say no, which is the very reason we have this section.

if you're not satisfied with this, we can make two lists. i'll list every dss scholar ever to publish in the field, and you name those who think there is a connection to xnty. then we'll count. if the xn-dss folks are in the majority, we'll say 'some'. if the no xn-dss folks are in the majority, we'll say 'most.'

there is no need for a 'who' citation, because we are talking about an exception to the consensus. the citations are the minority examples that believe there is a connection. the majority is every other publication ever published! no need to cite thousands of articles in the consensus. we need only link/cite those in the xn-connection minority, hence the special section. --XKV8R (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not deny this is true, and I see that you are a true authority on the subject. But if you believe there is a concensus, you must cite a source saying so. The fact that you "know" there is a consensus is not enough to establish this as a fact. WP rules specifically say that you must not say "most scholars agree that..." without citing a reliable secondary source. Otherwise this becomes just another way of stating your opinion. As a rule, it is better to avoid ad populum arguments, such as "as most Wikipedians agree..." . " Marokwitz (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Which Pliny?

The mentions something about Pliny's account of the Essenes, and "Pliny" is linked to the "Pliny" article. But, the "Pliny" article is a disambiguation page. It should be determined which Pliny is cited, and the link fixed to go directly to the appropriate article. (Since the elder Pliny was a historian, I would assume Pliny the Elder would be the correct article. But, I don't want to make the change based on an assumption.) 206.53.193.62 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

toxiℂℝrystal (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Not to be rude,but it states in the paragraph that it was Pliny the Elder.

Oxford Companion Quote

I've noticed repeated vandalism of the Oxford Companion quote found in the introduction section. So much so that I went out and purchased the book to verify the changes myself. I have corrected it straight from the book and put it in a block quote to discourage further vandalism. I will be watching this quote with the book on hand ready to smack down any dishonest edits. Clan-destine (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

agreed. this was previously pointed out here. the fagan quote from the oxford companion uses '100 A.D.' and should remain that way, as it is a quote. the rest of the article should read the standard scientific norm for near-to-present dates of BCE/CE. --XKV8R (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you pointed that out to me once when I messed it up by editing too fast. But, just so there's no confusion, per the above comment by clan-destine referring to this edit it's my understanding that the quote uses "A.D. 100" not "100 A.D." Mojoworker (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

agreed. thanx. --XKV8R (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Am I being really thick, but shouldn't the article be called 'Dead Sea Scrolls'? Isn't it the title for this collection of documents, and therefore should be capitalized? They are actually referred to as the Dead Sea Scrolls throughout the article - everywhere but in the title! Jack1956 (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're being thick, so am I. I just noticed, to my surprise, that Dead Sea Scrolls redirects to Dead Sea scrolls. There seems to be no proper reason for this, at least none is mentioned in the article. The article uses all-capitals spelling throughout, which is logical as its a well-established proper name and almost always spelled like this in Google. Britannica spells it "Scrolls", too [1]. So do all the external links. I suppose the unexpected spelling is simply a typo by the Canadian IP user who created the article back in 2002 [2] and although it has been corrected in the text itself, nobody ever changed the title. I also noticed that the user with this IP originally wrote "Dead Sea scrolls" in this article, but "Dead Sea Scrolls" in all other places [3], which confirms the intuition that it's a typo. I think I'm going to change the title to all-capitals. Please provide a plausible explanation why a non-standard spelling ought to be used before changing it back again. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Article in the Smithsonian: [4] Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reading this page and note that the second paragraph does not flow from the the first very well at all.

The second starts: "Undaunted, the Bedouin went to a nearby market..." Presumably the first paragraph should contain some reference to the Bedouin. Would edit myself, but since I'm unfamiliar with this topic, I'll leave it to the more experienced. Thanks! 212.88.73.1 (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

toxiℂℝystal (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Go look at the end of the second paragraph from the top.

Dating

Why was the dating format changed? Looking in the history one can see that the dating format was originally BC/AD someone changed it...? Wikipedia's policy does not support such changes because BCE/CE has become a very controversial subject. I for one feel that the format should be the format that is "attached" to the Gregorian calendar which we all follow. The religious reference is a part of history and if using BC/AD is so Abhorrent to anyone then that is their problem.

I know that some Jewish texts used the BCE/CE format for over 100 years but to try and make this De facto is absurd...

This BCE/CE seems like just another "PC" crowd pleaser. I would love to hear the thoughts of others.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.207.80 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 March 2010

If an article already uses one style, do not change to the other style unless there is a good reason for the change. This article has a long history of being BC/AD and was only changed February 8, 2009 and has been in contention ever since. Leave the article to the original date format (BC/AD).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.241.252 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 April 2010

this is a nonsense rule. but that has been discussed before. the entire idea of a wiki is to improve the article, not cling to an original post or setting. bce/ce is scientific, and appropriate for both christianity and judaism. it is not a shot against christians. see here for why.

"bce/ce is scientific"---is this a joke? Name the science please, which require such a change. Is it Theology? Such a cling to senseless changes can not be appropriate to anybody. The wikipedia has nothing to do with judaism, am I right? Or it is just a regular world domination project beginning, the next after French revolution and Russian revolution (which was both anti-Christianity in first turn)? From my point of view it is just ugly correction, which should be reverted back as soon as possible. Metelev sv (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

also keep in mind that there is a 3RR rule. --XKV8R (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that these texts are of such significance to both Christianity and Judaism, it's appropriate to use a style for the era which is acceptable to both. Jheald (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The BC/BCE system has been the year numbering system in place on this article essentially continuously since September 2007 when it was introduced with edit. I don't know what the rationale or consensus was at the time, but given the length of time since 2007, it seems BCE/CE is the style the article is currently using. So, per WP:ERA, do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors. Mojoworker (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

we can see that this article has now been semi-protected to protect against folks coming in and changing bce and ce to bc and ad. again, wiki admins are aware of what has been happening and will step in to curtail it. thanx. XKV8R (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the above comments and the length of time that BCE/CE have been in place in this article, I (along with several other editors) have been reverting edits that change the year numbering system. Most of these changes seem to come from non-confirmed editors, new users or IP editors who may be unaware of the issue or this discussion. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Year numbering systems and note the use of CE and BCE becoming more common in academic and religious writing. Mojoworker (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also see the discussion at Talk:Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Re:_Dating below. Mojoworker (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Mojoworkers claim that BCE/CE is 'becoming more common in academic and religious writing' if there was any evidence to support it. Such comments really ought to be supported with references to stand any chance of being seriously considered.--Cfimei (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, please discuss it there. Mojoworker (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A good attempt to deflect the argument to another area but lets stick to the point. Maybe BCE/CE is becoming more common place but you singularly fail to support your argument with references. Neither do you address the fundamental point - the article was written in 2002 using BC/AD but in 2009 it was changed to BCE/CE. You state that BCE/CE has been in place on this article for some time, yet its only been 2 years since the change and it wasn't fiddled with for 7 years before that! Wiki policy is clear. Leave the article as it was originally written if there is no consensus.--Cfimei (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to "deflect the argument", that's what it says at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Year numbering systems. I provided references elsewhere on this page, but here is one from The SBL handbook of style: for ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and early Christian studies page 69 by the Society of Biblical Literature: "8.1.2 ERAS - The preferred style is B.C.E. and C.E." There is a place in this article where A.D. is the correct style since it is a direct quotation at Dead Sea Scrolls#Significance to the Canon of the Bible following "According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:", which sometime gets incorrectly changed to CE — I've even done it inadvertently myself.

Also, where are you coming up with the 2009 date you are quoting? Are you basing it on the erroneous statement by the IP editor above? As has been mentioned previously, this edit from 1 March 2006 shows that BCE/CE was used at least that early. Mojoworker (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a corrupt text of the Hebrew Bible

The oldest extant texts are a corrupt text? What? Unlike the true text revealed to the King James scholars by divine revelation? Gnuwhirled (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Location of discovery

The location of the Dead Sea Scrolls is undisputedly the West Bank. Though Israel currently occupies the land (also bear in mind, at the time of discovery, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan), virtually no country outside of Israel recognizes the land in which the scrolls were found to be "Israel". asad112 (talk)

Edit request from 114.76.225.189, 2 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The Reliability of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their corruption

114.76.225.189 (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Additional information needed, please note that your request must be in the form "please change X to Y", and you should provide sources to back up any changes you suggest. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho!

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request from 149.169.221.148 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 5 May 2010

Muhammed edh-Dhib is described as a Palestinian in the article but his own article Muhammed edh-Dhib list him as a Bedouin. I checked other sources and they say he was a Bedouin. Either way the consistency needs to be updated. 149.169.221.148 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This change has been made. Eagletennis (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Dating

As the texts are dated 150 BCE to 70 CE (according to the article) I think I am justified in giving the article a category for "Biblical Manuscripts" by date of 2nd century BCE, 1st century BCE and 1st century CE; to link it to categories by century, which has been lacking sofar. Hugo999 (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

74 on mountain in modern scriptures, 76 in DSS

The only difference between(74) the Dead Sea Scrolls and the modern Bible is Exodus 24:1, "Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 Elders saw God (74 altogether)." In the DSC, Moses, Aaron, his four sons, and 70 elders or 76 altogether go up the mountain to see G-d. Why is this important? Using Simple(74) English(74) Gematria(74) with 'the key'(74): A=1...Z=26, G_D=7_4, Jewish=74, Judeans=74, menorah=74, Messiah=74, Y'shua=74, Jesus=74, Cross=74, Muhammad=74, etc. 7/4=July 4th. 'Coincidence'? 65.34.180.54 (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Brad Watson, Miami, FL

Third / Herod's Temple (1st Solomon's, 2nd Zerubabbel's)

Herod's Temple was the Third Temple. It was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD - 74 years after King Herod I's death in 4 BC / 749 AUC. Solomon's Temple was the First Temple and Zerubabbel's Temple was the Second Temple. 65.34.180.54 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Brad Watson, Miami, FL

Dead Sea Scrolls related RfC

There is currently an RfC related to a matter related to the Dead Sea Scrolls at Talk:Ebionites#RfC. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Failure to mention accuracy of other manuscripts

I'm surprised that this article does not mention the relative accuracy of the MT and other manuscripts that were questioned greatly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, it proved that these manuscripts were comparatively accurate copies - and yet this article does not even mention this whatsoever. Instead, it only talks about the question of canon. To me, this seems unfairly negative, leaving out certain information to push a certain agenda. 95.144.189.75 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How was this proved again? What is the MT? Should this probably be included in the article on that manuscript rather than the DSS? I tried to change the article to be as neutral as possible, any suggestions are welcome. Eagletennis (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Location of the find

It doesn't appear this talk between myself and the other editor on whether or not to include the West Bank when denoting the discovery location of the Dead Sea Scrolls is going anywhere. -asad (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate there is a consensus on using West Bank for some reason as the location of the find, but...why is this an exception to every other archaeological article in Wikipedia? We know where the scrolls were found, there is an article about it with a map. Why give a general geographical area? Every other article in archaeology gives as precise a location for the subject of the article as possible, if only because this in itself is important archaeological data.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Most people reading the article do not know or have never even heard of a location called Khirbet Qumran, and since there is no official country that controls the area now, or at the time of discovery, using the "West Bank" gives the reader the best sense of geographical location. I have no problem with it reading "The Scrolls were found at the northwest shore of Dead Sea in the Kirbet Qumran area of the West Bank." -asad (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely irrelevant in an archaeological article which country the find was made in. At the time the deposit was made. What relevance does the West Bank or even to west bank, has to the Dead Sea Scrolls? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I said earlier "Most people reading the article do not know or have never even heard of a location called Khirbet Qumran." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So? Why do they need to? The scrolls are called Dead Sea....I think thats a geographic pointer enough, don't you? There are many west banks, and not everyone may know which river its a bank of, but assuredly there is only one Dead Sea!Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Dead Sea is divided between Israel, Jordan and the West Bank, so when you say the "Khirbet Qumran region of the West Bank" one can accurately pinpoint the location. Yes, there are many "west banks, but there is only one "West Bank". I still am having a hard time understanding why you seem so bitterly opposed to saying ""Khirbet Qumran region/area of the West Bank." -asad (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The political implications of the West Bank are irrelevant to the subject of the article. If you are just trying to politicize this article, I suggest you stop. No other article in Wikipedia states the geographic region of the archaeological site unless it was relevant to the actual site, i.e. the region was existing as a distinct political, ethnographic, etc. entity that would shed light on the material brought up in that site. This is not the case hereKoakhtzvigad (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see your opposition to this now is entirely political, since you just brought up politics. Please read through my last posts and point to anywhere in them where I was motivated by a political reason rather than a geographic reason. The location is entirely relevant, I think perhaps you skipped over this section.

Also, in lew of your recent points, I suppose you will be wanting to remove all the mentions of Israel from these pages [5] [6] [7] [8]. Otherwise, I would suggest that you have a very good explanation as why listing Israel, Jerusalem or the West Bank in those articles is acceptable, and listing it on this article is not. -asad (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? It was you who brought three modern political entities into this discussion by saying, "The Dead Sea is divided between Israel, Jordan and the West Bank", but neither Jordan (country), nor the West Bank as administered by Israel and Palestinian Authority, have any bearing on the subject of the article. As a matter of fact the west bank of Jordan river can also mean Israel, archaeologically speaking, if you care to take a look at the map.

I am not going to discuss with you the other articles here and now Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I mentioned the three entities surrounding the Dead Sea (Israel, Jordan and the West Bank) how does that make it political? It is the exact location of the Sea in which the Scrolls were found. The fact the you accused me of politicizing the statement shows what mentality you are bring to this discussion. Also, it seems you are confusing the meaning of a west bank of a river and the West Bank. West Bank is capitalized, the words are being used to identify a location see (I am also sure you are aware that some Hebrew speakers call the area "Judea and Samaria" which by Israeli maps means the exact same thing as the West Bank). Also please see here. If I was suggesting listing the location by your interpretation, I would say "Khirbet Qumran region of the west bank of the Jordan River." Which is different than "Khirbet Qumran region of the West Bank."

It seems strange you would not want to discuss one of the main points that you made to defend your argument. I do not understand how you could go from saying, "No other article in Wikipedia states the geographic region of the archaeological site unless it was relevant to the actual site...". And after I provided you links to articles which have the exact same thing you are claiming Wikipedia articles on archaeological sites don't have, you say this: "I am not going to discuss with you the other articles here and now". Either address the obvious contradiction in your claim, or retract your contradicting statements. -asad (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked what your rationale is for adding the West Bank given the title already identifies the location of the site. You replied that it is territorially claimed by Israel, Jordan and the PA in the West Bank. This is not a rationale that makes archaeological sense.

Khirbet Qumran is not located on the west bank of Jordan river.

I am not an expert on archaeological articles in Wikipedia. Having said that, I looked at about a dozen that more readily came to mind, and only one stated the region for a good reason. There are many articles with problems in Wikipedia, and if I have the time, I will look at those you cited, but four wrongs do not make a right! In this article, there is no reason to mention the West Bank, or even the west bank Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there is a very good reason. Your explanation does not give any acknowledgement of what part of the Dead Sea they were found at. By reading the lead currently, an uninformed reader on the topic will have no idea of the scrolls were found on the Israeli, Jordanian or West Bank shores of the sea. That makes a big difference especially considering the great ownership controversy that exists regarding the scrolls.

It is not my responsibility to wait for you to have time to go over the other articles I provided, if you want your argument to have any backbone, you better start removing any mention of country or region from every single archaeological find/site article on Wikipedia. Also, understand it is not up to you to determine whether or not stating the location is relevant. -asad (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason to exclude reference to the West Bank, given that it identifies the modern name for the location where the scrolls were found. The Antikythera wreck article identifies the location as 'the Greek island of Antikythera', not just 'Antikythera'. The Terracotta Army article identifies the site as being in the Lintong District near the Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor. The Behistun Inscription is identified as being in Mount Behistun in the Kermanshah province of what is now modern Iran. The royal correspondence cache and dig site of Amarna is identified as being in the modern province of Minya in Egypt. I don't see any reason not to identify the modern area name of the specific location the scrolls were found - the Dead Sea is a sizable location, after all, and we have no reason not to show multiple levels of specificity when we have the information available. I also don't see any reason not to include the name of the village - readers don't need to know where the village is, they come here and read the article to learn where and what it is. asad's compromise of "The Scrolls were found at the northwest shore of Dead Sea in the Kirbet Qumran area of the West Bank", with perhaps a touch of copyediting, seems perfectly reasonable. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't worded too clearly. The other articles show multiple levels of specificity in regards to locations. The Greek island of Antikythera, not simply Antikythera. Near the Mausoleum of the first Qin Emperor in the Lintong district, not simply near the mausoleum. Mount Behistun in the Kermanshah Province of Iran, not simply Mount Behistun. Amarna in the province of Minya in Egypt, not simply Minya. In terms of consistency, the logical extension of this method to this article would be to refer to the location as being near the location of the village of Khirbet Qumran, on the coast of the Dead Sea in the West Bank. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think these examples miss the point, because Antikythera was Greek when the wreck was found, and is still in Greece today. Same for the Terracotta army - it was discovered in China and is still in China, etc.... By contrast, when the DSS were discovered, the place they were discovered in was in the British Mandate of Palestine. It subsequently was captured and occupied by Jordan, then captured and occupied by Israel, and today it is known as the West Bank. But to say the DSS were discovered in the West Bank is wrong, and glosses over the history. A better example would be Wolf bone - which correctly says that it was discovered in 1937 in Czechoslovakia , even though Vestonice, Moravia is today in a different country called "The Czech Republic". Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to 'Khirbet Qumran, on the coast of the Dead Sea in the British Mandate of Palestine, now encompassed by the modern area of the West Bank' or something along those lines. The Wolf bone example has its sentence structured to be referring expressly to the location when it was discovered but doesn't make any effort to educate the reader on where that is now. Some of the examples I made previously such as the correspondence cache and the Behistun Inscription both state their locations in modern terms - the correspondence cache is located in 'the modern province of Minya' in Egypt, and the Behistun Inscription was discovered in the Kermanshah province of Iran, neither of which existed at the time of the respective discoveries. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the consencus now rests upon including the "West Bank" or the "British Mandate of Palestine". -asad (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is to say "West Bank" (and that's a very big IF - I don't see the need for it), it should be in the context of a sentence making it clear that this is what the area is called NOW, not what it was called then. Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Modifying the current text to say "the northwest shore of the Dead Sea in what is now the West Bank" is neither controversial nor political. That's what the area is called in the English language today; we aren't making a statement about occupied territories. Many lay readers don't know where the Dead Sea is, and on some level that's what wikilinks are for, but they're just going to click on Dead Sea and read "bordering Jordan to the east and Israel and the West Bank to the west". Extra ambiguity here only inconveniences the reader. Gonfaloniere (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Gonfaloniere's suggestion about modifying the text, but I think that the location of the find is important to the early history of the scrolls. Because they were found on Jordanian territory, many scrolls were housed in the Palestine Archeological Museum. (The Chairman of the Board of Trustees of this museum, a Catholic priest named Roland De Vaux, later became the head of the "international team" of scholars that assembled to examine the scrolls once they came under Israeli control.) The article briefly mentions that Jordan claims ownership of the scrolls and regularly demands their return. This claim would seem to be related to their original discovery on Jordanian territory. But perhaps that's a can of worms best left untouched.--Other Choices (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier post: of course the earliest-discovered scrolls were discovered while the area was under British control, but there were significant later discoveries, too, within the territory of Jordan at the time.--Other Choices (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The competing claims can be covered further down the article. So far as this RfC is concerned, simply saying West Bank (without mentioning Britain, Israel, or Palestine) in the intro seems like the kind of neutral, ambiguous wording appropriate for a Wikipedia article. As of this writing, the museum article you linked to is an example of how not to handle it, in my opinion: apparently the museum is located in "Jerusalem, Israel" as opposed to East Jerusalem and the antiquities were discovered "in the Land of Israel (Ottoman Palestine)". Gonfaloniere (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I agree about the wording of the lede; and your point about the museum article is well taken.--Other Choices (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"In the then British Mandate of Palestine, present-day West Bank" should be fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found between 1947 and 1956, which means they were found only one year in the British Mandate. Do we really need to say the Jordanian-occupied West Bank? West Bank should do fine. -asad (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Very valid point. But, the West Bank is a territory, and British Mandate Palestine was at state-ish level. To maintain neutrality and state level consistency I changed it to: "They were specifically located at Khirbet Qumran in what was then British Mandate Palestine, and since 1947, has been known as the West Bank territory of the State of Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagletennis (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Err. Since 1967. Well, to avoid a long explanation in the intro, I just kept it to West Bank. It may be impossible to be completly neutral and fluid. Open to better suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagletennis (talk • contribs) 22:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Qumran Qu'ran.by Turiel M.

The relationship between both words " Qumran " and "Qu'ram" "Coran " cannot be discarted without furher investigation. What I proposed is a close " religious concordance " or whatever you may define it. The religious site of Qumram as origin of the holy sacred word from Qumran=Qu'ran. And this hipothesis: the qu'ran " word of God " come directly from " Qumran ".......The very beginning of Muslim religious roots..Maybe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.125.178.171 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Qumran and Quran has nothing to do with eachother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.84.162 (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it's definitely an interesting hypothesis. Although I think a more likely explanation is that the word is similar due the common roots of Hebrew and Arabic. It's probable that both the Hebrew and Arabic word for 'Word of God' were more closely related at the time those caves were in use, and that the word remained in the Arabic due to its use for the Islamic holy book.

Any Jewish folk care to contribute as to what the modern Hebrew is today for 'Word of God'? HappyGod (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As you know, Semitic languages revolve around pretty large amount of common three-consonant roots, and while one can speculate that "Quran" (recitation) is formed from the root K-R-A, the same root that found in Hebrew, for example, "Wayiqra" (and he called). Though, if "Qumran" has semitic root, it would be K-M-R, not K-R-A. -- ElComandanteChe ^talk 17:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The words are not related, not even close. "Quran" comes from a Arabic root with a meaning of read, proclaim, and/or recite. The title basically has the meaning of "scripture." The root has the same meaning in Hebrew, and the Bible can be referred to as "qara" but "Miqra" is the more common modern word used (same root).

If I understand correctly, the name "Qumran" also comes from Arabic (not Hebrew) and is based on the word meaning "moon." Qumran's name does not go back to the time when it was being used by the community(s) there.

Therefore, the (nonexistent) relationship can be discarded, and has no impact on this article whatsoever. — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Assertion of Digital Copies on the web? All?

Near the end of the article is the Digital Copies section which opens with the following:

High-resolution images of all the Dead Sea scrolls are now available online, and can easily be found with a Web search.

What is the basis of this assertion? I have found it rather difficult to find transcriptions any of the texts, let alone high-resolution images of all the DSS scrolls/fragments. Even inquiring with 2 scholars whose main focus has been the DSS (one of which actually worked with the group in charge for a couple years) have difficulty in pointing to places on the web that have any complete scroll. What places there are usually just have a few images of fragments which only serve as illustrations of what the fragments look like. What transcriptions exist are mostly from a few non-biblical scrolls (a far cry from "all" as given in the above assertion). A citation for this assertion would be good, especially if there were external links that lead to a website with such a wide collection of high-res DSS images. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Uploading such images at Wikisource or Wikimedia would be a great service as well. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This statement was clearly not true, as some scrolls still remain unpublished and in the hands of pr. collectors. It has been changed. Eagletennis (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dating

Was looking at the recent history and noticed that the dating had been changed from BCE/CE system to the other system. Although Wikipedia says either system is valid, shouldn't we — considering the genre of this topic — stick to the NPOV BCE/CE system rather than the POV other system (which is in itself a declaration of a particular faith, and hence the reason I've avoiding writing the other system)? — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Some editors keep changing it, even though BCE/CE has been in place on this article since September 2007. Several of us keep changing it back. See Talk:Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Dating above.

I don't see how the BC/AD system is less NOPV than BCE/CE. Both mean the same thing in that they describe the same way of reckoning time and since this way of reckoning time is based around a religious figure then both have their origins in that particular religion. Both systems have been thoroughly secularized and according to WP:ERA are equally valid in use in Wikipedia. Unfortunately the arguments over which system to use often comes down to Christianity vs. non-Christianity which makes neither side look particularly NPOV.

The guideline at WP:ERA states "Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page." which is the only specific guideline mentioned there relative to this discussion. Looking through the history of this talk page I do not see a consensus for using either system, which is a problem. That said, there is this from the lead paragraph of WP:MOSNUM (of which WP:ERA is a subsection) "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." What this means is that unless a consensus can be reached we are to use the format first used which appears to be this one from 2004 (BC/AD). Above someone made the claim that the BCE/CE format has been in use since 2007 so we should stick with that, however, that's not Wikipedia policy or part of the guidelines (things change on Wikipedia all the time, keeping something just because it's always been that way keeps the project from improving) and in any case no consensus was reached to change from what had been established before that since 2004. Personally I prefer the BCE/CE style but ultimately just dislike these debates and am more than happy to go with either. I also like the objective nature of the "first used" principle I quoted above and so I suggest we go back to the original and use BC/AD. Reaching a consensus for either style is going to be nearly impossible because it's basically a religious argument and since when have people ever been able to reach a consensus about their religious beliefs? That said, I'm open to anyone who can make a reasoned argument for BCE/CE other than personal preference. SQGibbon (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I don't know what the rationale or consensus was at the time — I guess someone who has more time than I do is free to scour the archives for any relevant discussions or formal consensus. But, per WP:Consensus, "consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Given the length of time since 2007, I think it's clear that even if there's nothing to be found in the archives, there is a de facto consensus that's been established by the fact that the dating has been stable for all these intervening years and the "do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other" clause currently applies. Which is certainly not to say that a new consensus cannot be formed, but I think that going back to look at the first use of the dating scheme by a "major contributor" (whatever that nebulous term means) all these years later is not what is intended by the statement at WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Mojoworker (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately the talk page archives are not that extensive. Here's the longest discussion about this and it is from 2008/2009 and shows no consensus. According to one editor the original change to BCE/CE was in 2007 here. Unfortunately there does not appear to be any discussion from that time period about the change (the change was made by an IP). Here is the archive page for when the change happened. Of course since that change from BC/AD to BCE/CE in 2007 there have been numerous attempts to change the article all of which have been reverted and almost none of which resulted in talk page discussion.

So here's what we have as I see it. Originally the article used BC/AD and as per the ruling from ArbCom that I linked to above that should have stayed in place unless a new talk page consensus was reached to change it. Then, three years later an IP made the change unilaterally (i.e., with no talk page discussion). Since then many editors have tried to change it back but have been reverted by more active editors, and again with little to no talk page discussion. There was one long discussion but I don't see how any consensus was reached there. So now it's 2011 and the edit warring continues and there has still only been one lengthy discussion that I see and it failed to reach consensus.

Taking all this together here's my proposal. BCE/CE has been dominant for the past four years but that's mainly through the vigilance of active editors preserving that style. But fine, let's keep that going. If anyone has an argument to make for BC/AD they should make it now (and within the next couple of weeks). If a long discussion occurs and no consensus is reached then I believe the the "first use" principle should take effect by default and that's what we should go with. If no one shows up to argue rationally for the BC/AD style then we keep BCE/CE and declare that as the consensus view. While I get the "silent consensus" idea the truth of the matter is that there has been no "silent" consensus -- people have been disagreeing with the change rather continuously via editing the article ever since the change to BCE/CE took place (though, unfortunately, not on the talk page). SQGibbon (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I am sure, people just don't know about beginning of such a silent "war" back the scene. They just make correction for what they are see as a silly omission. And these changes will be apper from time to time, I am sure. Second, I have a reason, why one should keep BC/AD. The BC/AD convention makes the peole to think about the birth of Jesus Christ as of birth of real person. It das not really matter, who you are, a christian or jewish or someone else, for all of us the fact is still the same, the fact that Jesus Christe was born 2012 years ago. It is just a question of history, nothing else, it is religiously neutral. As far as I know, even jewish people don't argue the fact itself, they agree that Jesus Christ was born and live and crucified. So why we should be "more saints than the Pope", i.e than the jewish peuple itself and reject the naming convention? Third, I have a personal reason. In spite of religious neutral nature of the "Before Christ" it was once change my mind. It was a myth for me, because in USSR 30-years back in time it was common to be atheistic and to say "common era" about the birth of Christe. When I notice the english abbreviation and look at dictionary "BC" explanation, maybe it was the first time, when I thought about Christe as about really lived person. It is as a miracle for me, till now.Metelev sv (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

SQGibbon said "I don't see how the [...] system is less NOPV than BCE/CE."

BCE/CE is (Before) the Common Era. "Common Era" is neutral, and does not directly point at anything religious.

The other system is both a designation as well as an assertion of a particular faith belief along the lines of "In the year of our [...]" for the CE version and the use of the word "christ" (with a large "c") for the BCE version. Both observant Jews and Muslims would have issues using such terms, and hard-line atheists and other non-J-man-liking persons may have a dislike of it, as well. The other system, in short, is quite POV. — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I admit my point was subtle but I'll try again. As you said Jews, Muslims, atheists, and so on dislike the BC/AD designation because of their own religious preferences and the non-secular association they make with the BC/AD style. My point is that this is still pushing a point of view since it's more of an anti-Christian preference than anything else. This is especially clear given that both styles are still based on the birth of Jesus. BC/AD is seen by many as pro-Christian whereas BCE/CE is seen as anti-Christian or at least non-Christian — none of which comes across as particularly neutral. In any case, my personal preference is for BCE/CE as this is becoming the standard in the academic world of religious studies. I just don't think either side can be NPOV when the issue comes down to whether one agrees or disagrees with Christianity and so the discussion needs to rely on something other than charges of POV pushing. SQGibbon (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of religious preferences, I think the distinction is that BCE/CE is the common form used today in scientific writing. Secondly, I think your proposal has merit — might as well get a consensus into the talk page so it can be explicitly established. But I do have a couple of nits to pick. I'm not sure I agree with applying the "first use" principle in this case. As far as I can see, the Arbcom decisions make no reference to the "style used by the first major contributor" — in fact it appears that sentence wasn't added to the MOS until this edit on 12 August 2007, years after the Arbcom cases. So I don't know if we can go and retroactively impose that "first use" guideline on what came before. Also, (in case anyone besides SQGibbon, al-Shimoni, and I are actually reading this) from one of the the Arbcom cases: "Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason." Is there a good reason? Not my call to make, but some of the talk page discussion may be construed that way as well as some who have presented "a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style". But note that WP:Consensus is a Wikipedia policy and my argument is that a consensus currently exists — albeit the weakest form.

The September 2007 date is the point from which the dating style has been consistently used in the article, but it's by no means the first such usage. For example see this edit from 23 August 2006 or this one from 1 March 2006. I don't know if there are earlier examples... Just because someone should have opened discussion of the original change on the talk page in 2007, 2006, or whenever the original edit was done, it seems a mistake to ignore the state of the article during the past four years. As you said the consistency has been retained mainly through the vigilance of active editors preserving that style, but my point is that through those very efforts, coupled with all the periods of BCE/CE stability and all the intervening edits unrelated to the year numbering system there has been consensus established that shouldn't be ignored. Yes, editors (usually IPs) have been periodically changing back to the BC/AD format and some have even brought the discussion to the talk page, but none have resulted in consensus or really much discussion at all and certainly didn't continue on to a formal RfC process. In fact, I would say that most of the edits are not actually challenging the BCE/CE consensus at all. Oftentimes editors, usually IPs or those new to Wikipedia, who are unfamiliar with the BCE/CE notation see it and attempt to be helpful by "fixing" it. Once they have been informed of the reason for the notation and pointed towards WP:ERA, no further discussion or edit warring ensues. And in examining the edit history, it does seem to explain most of the changes. Now as we've seen yesterday and today, some of the IPs are persistent, but how many of those IPs were actually given a talk page explanation and pointed to WP:ERA? Mojoworker (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about ArbCom officially endorsing the "first use" principle but I'm not sure that's really needed. It has become part of WP:MOSNUM by community consensus therefore it is a valid metric by which to make these decisions. I also don't see how the timing really matters. Many of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia came about after the situation they apply to happened and were then used to adjudicate those situations. In other words I don't believe there's any kind of "grandfather" policy or guideline in use on Wikipedia.

I'm also not very comfortable with attempting to understand the motivation for the edits other people make in the absence of their own statements. While I'm sure that a lot of people are not even aware of the "CE/AD" debate it has been my experience when dealing with this issue in the past that the people, including IPs, who go around changing CE to AD are very well aware of the issue and are doing so out of an anti-PC sentiment or even from a pro-Christian position (or a combination). But in the end I don't think that kind of speculation has any place in a discussion.

All that said, I have another idea. Someone should survey the references used in the article and whichever style is dominant, that's what we should go for. If there is no clear "winner" and all this discussion still does not lead to a consensus view (which I think is the probably outcome given the discussion happening below), then I think "first use" will be the only deciding factor available to us. SQGibbon (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt at fairness to those editors that may have objected in the past — and I'm sure some of them were motivated by religious or anti-PC sentiment. We could also go by Google search results: a search on "Dead Sea Scrolls" BCE returns "about 809,000 results" while "Dead Sea Scrolls" BC returns "about 1,450,000 results". But for a search in Google Scholar it's just the opposite, "Dead Sea Scrolls" BCE returns "about 11,400" while "Dead Sea Scrolls" BC returns "about 7,820". However, in spite of the logic of any such reference-counting proposal, I'm not sure it's supported anywhere in policy and my guess is that someone would challenge it no matter how it turns out and we'd be right back in the same situation — and perhaps even inspire editors to replace refs with another equally valid but in their preferred style and demand a recount. I would suggest we attempt to come to a consensus through discussion here on the talk page or perhaps through a formal RfC if necessary.

In doing some research, I found the following items which, while perhaps not all WP:RS, may be relevant:

1. Yeah I’ll put Collaboration Before Christ Thanks written just this week.
2. A New York Times article by William Safire. Though Safire concludes he will "stick with B.C.", he quotes Prof. Harold Bloom of Yale, his "Bronx Science classmate whose landmark book The Western Canon booms across the Kulturkampf battlefields: Every scholar I know uses B.C.E. and shuns A.D.";
3. From Writing About History at dailywritingtips.com "Most writers of history have adopted the notations BCE and CE."
4. and even The Christian Writer’s Manual of Style which lists both styles and is silent on favoring either one.

I'm sure people could come up with counter-examples, but here's my point: As was previously mentioned, WP:MOS says "do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article". I don't think it was arbitrary at all and for me it comes down to the question: Is Wikipedia "scholarly writing" and should it conform those norms? I would answer "yes", at least in this article — and I would go as far to say that editors should strive to be scholarly in all articles, except perhaps those on pop-culture. Mojoworker (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Harold Bloom, eh? He's got to be one of the most conservative scholars around, if he uses BCE/CE then that's saying something. As for my proposal, even though I didn't state this directly, I meant for it to be something both sides agreed to before actually doing the work. Obviously if it was all done unilaterally then that wouldn't get us anywhere. As for gaming the results after the fact, that doesn't seem too likely. By my estimate there are about 100 references given. If one style comes out ahead 70-30 that would mean that the other side would need to find at least 40 more and different sources that used the losing style and find ways to shoehorn them into the article. Certainly it's possible that that could happen but it seems very unlikely given the amount of work it would take. And yes there's nothing about this method that's directly supported by any policy or guideline but precedent does exist. Whenever there's a disagreement about how a certain word should be spelled, doing a survey of references (Google searches, Google scholar, bibliography used, etc.) is often used to help decide the issue. I'm just proposing that in the case consensus cannot be reached through normal discourse that this might be a way out we could all agree to.

As for your assertion of the scholarly nature of Wikipedia or even just this article I have to disagree. In fact I would say that WP is the opposite of a scholarly work (or better the opposite side of the same coin). WP is written for the lay person to gain a general and basic understanding of various topics. It is not an academic source for scholars to use. WP uses scholarly standards (reliable sources, verifiability, neutral tone, etc.) making it the "same coin" but for entirely different reasons ("opposite side"). Looking through my very modest library of religious books, the ones that are serious scholarship all use the BCE/CE style whereas the ones written for the average reader all use BC/AD (which basically confirms your Google search above). But in spite of all that I still prefer the BCE/CE distinction because I would like for WP to strive for a more scholarly reputation and tone plus I am not insensitive to the political/religious concerns surrounding the "year of our Lord" style. I don't think WP is a work for scholars but I would like to act as if it is. Perhaps a too subtle distinction there.

Also, as for your Google search, I think you need to append -BCE or -BC as appropriately in order to eliminate those results. I.e., "BC" should also show up in "BCE" thus inflating its numbers. When I did this my numbers came up smaller. But I'm also not an expert on Google search and because of the similarity in letters this kind of survey needs to be carefully crafted. SQGibbon (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we are mostly in agreement. Another factor I should add to this discussion is the article's strong tie to Judaic religious history. It is my understanding that BCE/CE is the norm used in that field and another non-arbitrary reason unrelated to mere choice of style. Mojoworker (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's one more — from The SBL handbook of style: for ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and early Christian studies page 69 by the Society of Biblical Literature: "8.1.2 ERAS - The preferred style is B.C.E. and C.E." Mojoworker (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Editor Cfimei attempted to sidestep the issue by substituting the phrase "These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE" with "These manuscripts are about 1,940 to 2,150 years old". I think this is an interesting idea but the resulting prose was awkward. It could be rewritten as "These manuscripts date to about 2,000 years ago" but the lack of precision doesn't seem particularly desirable either. Plus there are a couple of other spots in the article which would need to be rewritten in a similar manner. I'm bringing this up here in case someone else can come up with a way to reword the contentious bits in such a way as to avoid the entire BC/AD v. BCE/CE debate. It doesn't seem likely, but who knows. SQGibbon (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for talking in the wrong section here! A sidestep seems to be an equitable solution for the discussion on the merits or otherwise of using BCE/CE over BC/AD or indeed vice versa. We know these scrolls are about 2,000 years old give or take a few decades and that the reference given after the dating, written by F F Bruce refers to BC/AD. We could maintain continuity by alining the dating system to that of the reference but that might not appease fans of BCE/CE. And doesn't Wiki policy recommend keeping true to any references used? Personally I would follow that line and continue to use BC/AD but in the spirit of compromise we can use wording that steers clear of any particular dating system. Yes, "2,000 years ago" isn't terribly precise but neither is carbon dating. F F Bruce's reference merely states that the scrolls "point to a date before A.D. 70 for the Qumran texts. Some of the biblical manuscripts included among them are dated palaeographically in the first half of the second century B.C., and a few earlier still." Whoever it was that made the Wiki contribution that "These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE" has assumed a generalized date between 150 to 70 but in fact the author makes reference to scrolls that are even older. Hence the wording itself lacks precision as a quality that SQGibbon believes is desirable. I think precision is a difficult quality to achieve in dating many ancient artifacts. I also note that BCE/CE is used in other parts of the Wiki article and perhaps the instigator of this decided to make sure this dating system was used throughout the entire article which is a shame. Many of the references allude to BC/AD, so we have two systems in place. The wiki view (BCE/CE) and the views expressed by many authors references (BC/AD). Surely for Wiki to remain a site of quality information based on academic work (i.e. references) we ought to support that work by keeping to the same system the academics have used? But if not then the only alternatives are to delete the BCE/CE/BC/AD terms or agree to go start the dispute resolution process to get this resolved one way or another.--Cfimei (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Cfimei, I have been trying to assume good faith on your part, but your actions have made that nearly impossible. You quite clearly have a warped view of the issue and how to pursue your agenda. Have you actually read the discussion? For that matter, have you read any of the other information on Wikipedia policies and procedures that have been presented to you? I would suggest that you follow the advice given to you at User talk:Cfimei#BLOCKED by the administrator who blocked you. Mojoworker (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mojoworker, when a person resorts to throwing personal insults their case is lost. Indeed I have read the discussion here and the other dating discussions in detail. I have also raised a few pointers for discussion but you have not addressed them. Additionally, Wiki policy is clear, if no consensus then the original work should remain. The article was written in 2002 in BC/AD format but changed in 2009 to BCE/CE. As for taking the administrator's advice he said this; "As for the AD/CE question, we generally leave an article as it was written, unless there's consensus to change it." Good advice indeed and perhaps you should follow it too?--Cfimei (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's how you are interpreting Kwami's advice, then I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS again. Mojoworker (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No consensus = find a compromise or take the dispute process option. I'll compromise and avoid reference to any dating system (BCE/CE/BC/AD) if you will. And Kwami's advice was clear and hardly open to mis-interpretation. I'm also waiting to have your views on my suggestions four paragraphs above.--Cfimei (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Except compromise for the sake of compromise your proposal is no good. This is not enough to change the article. WP:DEADHORSE it is. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Compromise is good and who says that is it's not enough to change the article? You and a one or two others?--Cfimei (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cfimei, I agree, kwami's advice to you at User talk:Kwamikagami#Dead Sea Scrolls dating dispute (BCE/CE or BC/AD) was pretty clear: "By your count, the article has been stable w CE format for 2½ years, so I suspect that if you took that argument to WP:ANI they would tell you that implies that editors at the article have been in consensus with CE for the past couple years (a 'silent majority'), and that you'd need to get a new consensus to change it." He is also clear on the inappropriateness of your proposal to omit all specific dates, so I don't feel the need to elaborate on it further.

Also if you did read WP:CONSENSUS, then you understand that "consensus is not necessarily unanimity." You appear to be the only one arguing to form a new consensus to change from the current dating style — even SQGibbon said he prefers BCE/CE. I have also mentioned the article's strong tie to Judaic religious history and that BCE/CE is the norm used in that field, and is specified as the preferred style in The SBL handbook of style: for ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and early Christian studies by the Society of Biblical Literature, and is a non-arbitrary reason for the use of BCE/CE unrelated to mere choice of style as specified at WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Do you have a non-arbitrary reason to change it to BC/AD? From your discussion so far, it seems like your objection to BCE/CE is based on your admitted point of view that "BCE/CE dating is actually nothing more than an excercise in political correctness" and as SQGibbon told you, that seems to be a case of WP:I just don't like it. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course this is all about political correctness - a phrase that addresses some desperate need to make sure that nobody is offended by anything and everybody is kept happy. But for many, particularly those who hold religion dear to them (not me I might add) it is next to impossible to reach consensus. You fix one thing to appease a certain group, you end up offending another. You argue quite cleverely when you refer to 'consensus not necessarily being unanimity' as a basis for the status quo given the fact that you appear to have numbers on your side. However al-Shimoni {who started this discussion} suggests returning to BC/AD so you can't argue the unanimity point. And you are selective when it comes to quoting others like SQGibbon who actually said he doesn't mind either way. What next for the PC brigade, an attack on our week day names because they originate from Teutonic and Roman dieties and offend other groups? The SBL Handbook of Style does indeed prefer the use of BCE/CE and I take my hat off to you for finding an academic reference. But again, digging a little deeper into this, the authors clearly state that BC/AD is also acceptable. Again, great selectively on your part. So, with the ambiguity in the SBL Handbook we are back to square one and as Kwami said, we should stick to the original wording but I'm happy to avoid mentioning either system. I must also quickly address your point about 'stability' and the 'silent majority' in the article given that it hasn't been changed for over 2 years. Uhmm..how about the 7 years prior to that when it featured BC/AD? That was a jolly good period of stability until the PC brigade came along and decided to change it. And the so called silent 'majority' weren't so silent after their handiwork was noticed. And I submit the word 'majority' refers to just a couple of determined PC advocates who thought they could get away with it!--Cfimei (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cfimei, you misread al-Shimoni. On the rest: the only valid arguments in Wikipedia content disputes are the ones based on Wikipedia policies, an you present no such argument. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, al-Shimoni does indeed appear to support BCE/CE as opposed to the 'other' system...lol--Cfimei (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification: I wasn't advocating going to the system Cfimei was previously advocating for, but — rather — saying we should continue with the BCE/CE system. My point in the initial comment I made in this section was that the BCE/CE system has been the norm for quite a while (a defacto consensus), and I also pointed out the NPOV of this system, as opposed to the other which includes, in its respective labels, a declaration of a particular faith which places it into a POV category. This latter point comes into more play considering this particular article is about scrolls which are of a Jewish religious provenance which would be reluctant to utilize a system which includes a declaration of faith for another faith. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cfimei, it wasn't my point about 'stability' and the 'silent majority' in the article — that was from kwami's advice to you here. Did you read it? Or perhaps you are the one reading selectively. As has been mentioned previously, I'm not sure where you are getting your 7 years metric — this edit from 1 March 2006 shows that BCE/CE was used at least that early. It appears you are on a dead-horse-beating crusade against some imagined "PC brigade". It's time you put down the stick. Have you read WP:POINT? From now on I think it's perhaps best to ignore you. From the start your actions appear to have been agenda based with disruption as the goal. You don't appear to be listening to any of the advice offered to you or are reading too selectively, too quickly, or with too little comprehension of WP:Policy that you are misinterpreting what is said. Mojoworker (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see we have a couple of determined PC advocates even if some are pathologically unwilling to regard themselves as such. I await an imminent attack on the names we use for days of the week as I'm certain some will think that Tuesday illustrates a POV category..lol And anyway, this was just an exercise in testing Wiki's validity as a source of information for students like myself. Our lecturers warned us not to rely on Wiki for our research work and my tests have proved their warnings to be true. When a tiny cabal of PC advocates can dominate and dictate a source of information, particularly in certain areas that evoke strong feelings amongst readers then Wiki loses credibility. I'll stick to the uni library or PubMed instead. Cheers guys!--Cfimei (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind that both the French and Russian revolutions begins with the calender change. In France it was 10-days in the week calender, in Russia it was 5-days in the week calender at first. And both revolutions was anti-Christian by nature. I don't see the difference here, you will really end up with the quantity of days and names of days in the week change. I am russian and belong to Eastern Church and I am researcher (physics), not a priest.Metelev sv (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So, by your own admission you were not actually trying to improve the article or help Wikipedia but were running an experiment or exercise in order to make a point about Wikipedia and its editors? In that case since there does not appear to be anyone left making an argument for using BC/AD in good faith, I think we can safely state that the consensus view is to use BCE/CE and close this discussion. SQGibbon (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose using BC/AD in good faith. It's silly to pretend that "BCE" is more "neutral" when it refers to the same starting point as "BC/AD". Furthermore, BCE is offensive because there's nothing "common" about this era: the Jews, Chinese, Muslims, and many others use a totally different starting point. Finally, since Wikipedia is not an academic journal, but is a public encyclopedia, it is relevant to note that most people are much more familiar with BC/AD than with BCE/CE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.115.8 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll follow SQGibbon's assertion/conclusion above (I agree) that consensus has been achieved in support of the BCE/CE system. Is there a method of hatnoting the talk page linking to a discussion thread for people's future reference? :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You are 3 or 4 man, who agree about question which concerns much more people in such an easy way? Thats why there is a threshold for the elections. What you had done is such an unreal thing as a The Belavezha Accords, where Stanislav Shushkevich, Boris Yeltsin, and Leonid Kravchuk agreed to dissolve USSR.Metelev sv (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Google scans

The scrolls are now online courtesy a collaboration between Google and the Israel Museum, who claim copyright over the resulting images:

Website, text, and photos © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this website may be downloaded, copied, or reproduced in any form, analog or digital, without the permission of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, with the exception of single copies for research or private study. Copyright in the digital images of the manuscripts, created by the Israel Museum and displayed on this site, is held by the Israel Museum. Reproducing these digital images in any manner other than for research or private study requires prior permission or licensing.

My reading of Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag is that the resulting images should in fact be public domain, but there's also this note: This page relates to scans/photocopies only. For photographs that have been taken from some distance away, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.

Obviously the high resolution images would be very valuable to the greater community, but given they credit Ardon Bar-Hama for the photography I wonder if there are actually new copyrights? -- samj _in^out 18:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing this site of scans is where they are online at??? As far as I can see, they only have the Great Isaiah scroll, the War scroll, Temple, Community Rule scrolls, and the Commentary on Habakkuk scroll available. :( A brief view of Isaiah shows that it works nicely, but (presently, at least) is not the whole collection (which is what what I'd like to see, particularly of the biblical books; several of us aren't that interested in the the secular/extra-biblical texts). Is this indeed the correct website? — al-Shimoni (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The images are not public domain unless the originals are in the public domain, and that may not be the case as the first publishing is often a factor. I'm not familiar with Israeli copyright law. Also, this has already been through some courts, which would be interesting content to add to this article. See [9]. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled in a case involving copyright and the Dead Sea Scrolls, finding that copyright attached in that case because of the originality of the reconstruction process of the scrolls which required more than "the sweat of man's brow." http://lawatch.haifa.ac.il/heb/month/dead_sea.htm  ; see also http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82749&page=1 . It provides an interesting review of copyright law in Israel.

The Court stated (in the below translated excerpt):

The District Court closely examined Qimron’s process of work, with the intention of examining the level of originality in the process, and not because it thought that a large investment is sufficient to acquire copyright. This process, at the end of which the collection of fragments became a complete text, that bears content and meaning, included several phases of creation:[31] matching the fragments based on their physical compatibility, arranging the matching “islands” of fragments and placing them in the putative place in the scroll, deciphering the written text on the fragments, to the extent that such deciphering is required and filling the gaps between the fragments. In the creation of any of these phases there has been a different level of originality and creativity, but nevertheless, there is no place for examining each phase on its own. In this case, the various phases of the work are tied together, interdependent and have mutual influence upon each other. Deciphering the text dictates, to some extent, the arrangement of the “islands” of fragments; the arrangement influences the possible meaning of the text, its construction and content, and the way of filling the gaps in it. The different phases of the work should not be separated from each other, and should be considered as one work. Examining the work, with its various phases, as one whole work, reveals undoubted originality and creativity. Qimron’s work was not technical, “mechanical”, like simple labor which result is pre-known. His SH’AR RU’ACH,[32] “the additional soul” he put in the fragments of the scroll, that turned the fragments to a living text, were not just the investment of human resources, in the meaning of “the sweat of man’s brow”. It was the fruit of a process in which Qimron applied his knowledge, skill, imagination; in which he applied discretion and chose among various options. Geoffbrigham (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See the new copyright section of the article that I put up. Please someone who knows law better than me who has more interest feel free to edit it with citations. TY. Eagletennis (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing how the scrolls ended up in Israel

During the invasion, Israel seized the scrolls and transferred them to the Shrine of the Book in the Israel Museum. How can I add this info, it keeps getting removed as unnuetral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.152.214 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: I moved this from the top of the page. Since the comments are in chronological order, it would likely be missed where it was. To answer your question, you need to properly cite a source for the information — see WP:Verifiability. Note that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." Also note that your proposed addition duplicates what is already in the article at Dead Sea Scrolls#Publication where it currently says: "Prior to 1968, most of the known scrolls and fragments were housed in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. After the Six Day War, these scrolls and fragments were moved to the Shrine of the Book, at the Israel Museum." Mojoworker (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it to the correct place.I am using the already cited sources, for example:"Israel seized the scrolls and other antiquities from the Palestinian Museum, which was managed by Jordan in east Jerusalem when it occupied this part of the city in 1967," said Rafea Harahsheh of Jordan's antiquities department. The current phrasing is very vague indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.152.214 (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the phrasing (before you changed it) was vague at all. The scrolls were in one place, the Six Day War took place and then they were moved elsewhere. That's way more information than is needed in an article about the Dead Sea Scrolls. The problem I've been having with some of your edits is that it's pretty clear you have an agenda that you are pushing. In other words you appear to be coatracking — discussing a tangential detail with more detail and in a biased manner than is needed for this particular article. It does not appear that you are remaining neutral in your edits. SQGibbon (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that the editor has an agenda, but at least they are trying to make their edits more neutral, so hopefully they are learning. Seems Wikipedia is full of Civil POV pushers these days, but I suppose that's better than the uncivil ones — then again, maybe not. I think the "very vague" was addressing the Dead Sea Scrolls#Publication section which doesn't mention the ownership controversy, but really why is the information repeated there at all? I may see if I can tweak the ownership dispute section a bit. Mojoworker (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

BCE/CE dating is actually nothing more than an excercise in political correctness.

It seems that my edits to return the dates of the Scrolls back to the traditional view, i.e. BC/AD is meeting some resistance but for what reason? None appears to have been given other than a need to become politically correct. The use of BC/AD has been around for centuries and until the appearance of political correctness, never seemed to cause anybody any problems for anybody of any faith, except of course those who believe that political correctness must take precedence. Wiki is not the place for this sort of censorship. As for a consensus that BCE/CD should remain, I have seen no evidence of overwhelming numbers of Wiki contributors making this assertion. Let us use the original contributors dating system and move on as I fundamentally disagree with modernizing this subject.

There is a current discussion about this a few sections above this one. It mentions some of the issues/reasons, debates, WP:ERA, etc. :)

I'm not a fan of PC, myself, I'm (at times) quite anti-PC. I can see how this could be seen as being PC, but I also think there is more to it than PC. Anyway, do add any comments in the ERA discussion above. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You might want to read the article on BCE/CE. BCE/CE has been around for over 300 years. It is also becoming the norm in academic writing. This especially in religious studies, e.g., for a short while I attended a Southern Baptist college in Tennessee and for the Old Testament and New Testament classes we were taught, and used exclusively, BCE/CE. And again from the article many Christian groups and denominations have adopted its use. And while BC/AD and the associated calendar was created by Christians for Western Christian use the calendar system has become the standard for use around the world. In other words the calendar no long belongs to Western Christians but to everyone. Adopting a naming system that recognizes its global adoption seems pretty reasonable to me. Finally, I don't see what's wrong with taking into account other people's feeling when choosing our words. Just yesterday I came into contact with about 50 different people and did not insult any of them or use language I thought might be offensive to them. I think that's just normal common human decency and fail to see why that's such a bad thing. So other than your aversion to "political correctness" is there a reason we should use BC/AD? Also, you might want to read the essay Just Don't Like It. SQGibbon (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If there was anything more to this, it would have been raised when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. This is nothing more than yet another example of PC behaviour at its worst. Please remember that 'PC-ism' is a recent phenomina borne out of a need to appease everybody but we all know you can't please all the people all the time - that's life. We can discuss the merits of PC behaviour on a dedicated Wiki page. Therefore I must revert again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.190.180 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since the BCE/CE has been around for over 300 years can it really be called "PC-ism" since, as you state, "PC-ism" is a recent phenomenon? SQGibbon (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Who really knows how long BCE/CE has been around but since the advent of poltical correctness such terms have become ready ammunication for the PC brigade.--Cfimei (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfimei (talk • contribs) 16:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To ElComandanteChe. Consensus is a very wooly word to use here on Wiki and clearly no amount of discussion will seem to change the postion - that BCE/CE must be used for dating issues. I remain sceptical on the numbers of wiki contributors who believe the PC presentation of dating should take precedence and I ask again, if this is the case, why not revert to the original contributor who used BC/AD? Sadly, this point has not been addressed by ElComandanteChe or SQGibbon.--Cfimei (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfimei (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is well-defined term here (please see Wikipedia:Consensus policy). To my understanding, this discussion clearly shows that the consensus for BCE/CE was established. Please don't forget to sign your comments here with four tildes (~) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, to my understanding consensus is not established for the use of BCE/CE. And as for SQGibbon "Please wait till consensus is formed. There is no rush." This contradicts ElComandanteChe's previous assertion. And round and round we go, ad-infinitum....--Cfimei (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfimei (talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to explain. User:ElComandanteChe was saying that "consensus for BCE/CE was established". What User:SQGibbon meant was "Please wait till new consensus is formed to change to BC/AD. There is no rush." See: Consensus can change for more information. Mojoworker (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And I ought to refer contributors/readers to the reference appended after the date. F F Bruce's article uses BC/AD throughout. So lets stick with that shall we?--Cfimei (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggested something similar above but as a survey of all of the references used in the article. If one style is dominant then we should go with that one. This approach has its own problems but at least it might have an objective outcome and is in line with standard Wikipedia policy of reporting what sources say. SQGibbon (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that 77.102.190.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is User:Cfimei editing while logged out. I informed them they need to make sure they log in before editing. Mojoworker (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to change the date format along the following lines, i.e. "they age between xxxx to xxxx years old (as at 2011)" or similar neutral text. If we can agree on this then I'll go ahead and change it and the issue of BCE/CE versus BC/AD can be put to bed. We must recognize the reference given after the date (by F F Bruce) refers to BC/AD. I am no longer pushing for its re-introduction in the Wiki text but rather avoid any reference to BCE/CE or BC/AD at all. That ought to keep everybody happy. But sadly it seems that reverters to BCE/CE are no longer willing to discuss the matter and are imposing their will. Formal dispute resolution appears the only outcome. Please can I receive feeback first.--Cfimei (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Cfimei, are you following this discussion? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I see the discussion is taking place in 'dating' above so will review and comment there. Thank you for the direction.--Cfimei (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering only a few BCE enthusiasts want it, i've reverted. seems nonsense to implement such a politically strong term in a free encyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.232.181 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the "Dating" section further above (which was occurring concurrently and after the discussion in this section was happening). It was agreed to remain with the BCE/CE system. Those who were in the "few" were those advocating the other system. This is reason your edit was reverted by OldMoonraker. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not liking a dating system is not something we are going to take into account. Consensus should remain until a new consensus is arrived at based on WP:ERA as it is now worded (which does not mention the original contributor). (or worded at the time of any new debate!).Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)