Talk:Dirk Obbink

File:Dirk-obbink.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dirk-obbink.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Dirk-obbink.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dirk Obbink. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113141416/http://www.classicalassociation.org:80/CLASSICI/Oxford.html to http://www.classicalassociation.org/CLASSICI/Oxford.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110227064954/http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk:80/research/projects/papyri.asp to http://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/papyri.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810233509/http://ascweb.unl.edu:80/alumni/success/obbink.html to http://ascweb.unl.edu/alumni/success/obbink.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110131070815/http://lsa.umich.edu:80/umich/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=23b7a5786014d110VgnVCM100000a3b1d38dRCRD&vgnextchannel=9fe77787314f3110VgnVCM1000003d01010aRCRD to http://www.lsa.umich.edu/umich/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=23b7a5786014d110VgnVCM100000a3b1d38dRCRD&vgnextchannel=9fe77787314f3110VgnVCM1000003d01010aRCRD

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sappho.

Very sorry, but I am new to Wikipedia. Basically I undid a change that Caeciliusinhorto made, then undid my revision as realised it undid others' revisions ... so back to status quo!

I was very precise and NEVER claimed that Obbink is under investigation for a crime.

I wrote that the origin of the Sappho Papyri is under investigation. Very different!

I think that there are enough reliable sources to show that law enforcement are looking at it. For example Google: Turkey + Bibble Museum + Galatians. It should be clear that the Turkish government has asked various US Federal agencies to look into that, since that fragment of Galatians was smuggled out of Turkey. Obbink repeatedly gives the Sappho fragments the same origin as that Galatians fragment in London, BEFORE Galatians supposedly went to Istanbul .... hence, basic logic should clarify that it is highly likely the Sappho fragments are also under investigation.

PornBotPMS (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It may be highly likely that the Sappho fragments are under investigation (and David Meadows at rogueclassicism, at least, is highly suspicious of them). However, concluding that because other fragments which may be related to the Sappho fragments are under investigation, then the Sappho fragments must also be is original research or synthesis, both of which wikipedia does not allow. Wikipedia's role is to report what is in reliable sources. As Obbink is a living person, wikipedia is especially strict on this rule, both for legal reasons and because we want to avoid potential harm. One of the things that wikipedia is most careful about is stating, or even implying, that a living person has been involved in a crime, or is under criminal investigation. So though your edit did not outright state that Obbink was involved in or under investigation for a crime, as it could be construed as implying it, we have to be extremely careful with sourcing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Prof Obbink's statement; denying allegations of improper handling or sale of manuscripts fragments

Dirk Obbink has issued a statement to the Waco Tribune-Herald, Texas :

“The allegations made against me that I have stolen, removed or sold items owned by the Egyptian Exploration Society collection at the University of Oxford are entirely false,” he stated. “I would never betray the trust of my colleagues and the values which I have sought to protect and uphold throughout my academic career in the way that has been alleged.

“I am aware that there are documents being used against me which I believe have been fabricated in a malicious attempt to harm my reputation and career. I am working with my legal team in this regard.”

Unfortunately he has not made an open public statement; and the Waco Tribune-Herald is behind a paywall. The text above is from a blog; which is not a good citable source in Wikipedia terms.

However, it is also not regarded as good Wikipedia practice to include in an article, allegations of illegality (as is the case here) when the subject disputes them. So what should we do? TomHennell (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have already added a summary of Obbink's statement in Waco Tribune-Herald denying the allegations (it is the final paragraph of the "Controversy over "First Century Mark" and other items from the Egypt Exploration Society collection" section). If more accessible statements from Obbink are forthcoming we can expand on it. BabelStone (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)