Hacker News Reader

The headline is factually correct. The contract was made in 2013 between Dr. Obbink and Hobby Lobby Stores, not between him and the museum, which didn't yet exist. The first sentence of the third paragraph reads:

"Thirteen fragments from the collection were found in the Museum of the Bible, a Washington institution founded by Hobby Lobby’s evangelical Christian owners, the Green family."

So the headline is correct and the article provides additional details. Also, I don't see what the worth of the texts has anything to do with it. Here's the statement from the EES:

https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/professor-obbink-and-missing-ees-...

"These texts were taken without authorisation from the EES" is theft regardless of the value of those texts.

Edit: if this article has any bias, I don't see it. It is short and filled with facts. I has a dozen links to sources. It implies that the Museum of the Bible could do a better job verifying its acquisitions, but it points out that other museums could too ("Museums in general have faced increased scrutiny over the origins of their prized antiquities"). Unless some facts have been left out, this seems like a good article to me and the type of reporting we should applaud.

Thanks for that link. I'm afraid that events have moved faster than me. The last time I looked into this (6 months ago or so), EES was still standing behind Obbink on the various accusations related to him and Hobby Lobby, which at that point merely involved authenticating papyri sold at auction (the same lot in which the new Sappho was discovered a few years ago).

EDIT:

I see that Obbink claims that the "documents being used against him" are fraudulent. Whether he means the contract or the EES records is hard to say.

https://variantreadings.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/obbink-s...

>The headline is factually correct.

Factual correctness is not a defense against being misleading. It is quite easy to make factually correct statements that are also misleading.

"$Person has never denied $HorribleAct."

"$Person has never apologized for $HorribleAct."

"$Person has never presented any evidence showing they didn't do $HorribleAct."

You can effectively mad lib these with almost any combinations and it result in a technically true statement. But put a specific case in a news headline, and it would still be considered misleading. Why? Because we know when people read those sentences in a news headline, they will assume that there is an underlying accusation with enough credibility to be denied. Such an accusation doesn't exist. Factually, such a headline never stated such an accusation exists. But we know that is how people will read it, and thus to run such a headline knowing well the way it will be read would, at least to me, qualify as being misleading.

Did that happen in this case? I don't know enough to be sure. I just want to point out that factual correctness is not, by itself, enough to disqualify a charge of a headline being misleading.

The title is neither misleading, nor incorrect.

The professor got accused of illegally selling the documents to Hobby Lobby.

It would be supremely ironic if one of the fragments being sold contained the 10 commandments…

"but it points out that other museums could too"

That's the bias right there. There is a broader problem here, but that's not indicated in the headline. Hobby Lobby was specifically targeted in the headline to create emotional engagement. Not the end of the world. Not a vast conspiracy - they need to sell clicks and paper. But not totally honest either.

That's a good point, but astute readers aren't likely to be misled by headlines alone.

Unfortunately, headline scanning for confirmation bias of one's current beliefs is rampant. This means (a) biased headlines will get more clicks, and (b) such headlines do constitute a certain lack of honesty in journalism, because of the likelihood that they will mislead many readers.

You don't mislead in headlines for astute readers so there isn't a point in discussing that. You mislead in headlines for everyone else.

It's an article about Hobby Lobby, not a generic article about all museums.

I doubt the rules have changed much on his watch. The basic laws regarding theft have stayed more or less the same in England on his watch. These ancient manuscripts did not belong to Obbink, they belonged to the Egypt Exploration Society and Obbink was merely employed to take care of them, and had no right to sell them. The facts seem pretty clear to me.

As another poster said, putting "hobby lobby" in the title was not meant to denigrate anyone, it is in fact the correct description of the facts because the Hobby Lobby company actually purchased the manuscripts.

As far as value goes, I am not sure how much these texts were worth, I doubt they were worth nothing. And obviously, low value is not an excuse for stealing. Unless the Egypt Exploration society completely disclaims ownership of the manuscripts (e.g., they toss them in the trash), these things are their property and cannot be taken, regardless of their supposed market value.

Now one can argue that the Egypt Exploration Society themselves stole the stuff from Egypt. That may be true, a lot of the ancient things in English museum are stolen, but I do not know the details for these particular manuscripts. If the Hobby Lobby founder had his museum in Egypt and put the manuscripts there he might call himself a heroic righter of historic wrongs, but he doesn't so that is not really an issue.

I am not sure exactly why are you complaining about bigotry.

BTW, for those that cannot read the nyt article, the NYPost more or less copied it. https://nypost.com/2019/10/17/renowned-oxford-professor-accu...

Note to the NY Times: your paywalls are forcing innocent people to read the NY Post!

> and that gets all the bigots out in arms.

Please edit flamebait out of your posts here. It leads to fire-meets-petrol feedback loops, nowhere more reliably than on religious topics. Your comment is fine otherwise and deserves better.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> leads to fire-meets-petrol feedback loops

You'll notice that this is, in fact, exactly what I said.

The context that I was trying to bring up -- perhaps too indirectly -- is that rather partisan people on both sides who have been having a lot of rhetoric back and forth about this on Twitter for a few years now. Obbink's Bible Museum connections have been a serious scandal. One side is outraged by Hobby Lobby's shady practices, and Obbink's cooperation with them, and the other has claimed that Hobby Lobby's practices haven't differed so much from other museums, though they have certainly behaved ignorantly from time to time. The new accusations of theft, of course, are a black eye for anyone who has defended Obbink (which includes the organization now making the accusation) if they prove to be accurate.

I believe it was what you meant, but it wasn't what you said. In that gap lies internet peril. Even what you've said here by way of explanation is the sort of thoughtful and factual content that makes for much better discussion on HN.

As someone else pointed out, Hobby Lobby and the Bible Museum have rather close relations beginning before the Museum existed. Their acquisition techniques have also been quite sketchy since that time. (Yes, Hobby Lobby attempted to smuggle cuneiform tablets into the US as "tile samples". https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-files-civ...)

Further, ancient artifacts have value beyond that of the cost of their materials, whether or not "gold and jewels" are involved.

"and that gets all the bigots out in arms."

Could we avoid the irrelevant ad hominum attacks?

If you read the complaint that you linked to, the government alleged that the foreign sellers shipped the items into the U.S. as "tile samples" and nowhere alleges that Hobby Lobby knew anything about or had anything to do with that. That's a fundamentally important distinction.

yet they settled out of court for $3m and had to return the goods... id say its pretty safe to say they are up to some shady stuff, otherwise why not fight in court to clear your name and save the $3m ?

The government was entitled to seize the goods under civil asset forfeiture regardless of whether Hobby Lobby did anything wrong. (All that matters was whether the goods were actually looted, not whether Hobby Lobby knew anything about that.)

As to settling for $3 million, it could easily cost that much money to litigate the case. Critically, the government didn't get Hobby Lobby to admit to anything in the stipulated settlement. The government typically pushes for some admissions as part of a settlement. In the HSBC case, for example, there area a whole raft of admissions: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/legacy/2012/....

you just keep trying to excuse their actions... and i'll just sit here and judge their actions and intentions. They aren't on the up and up and have been caught time and time again, but you are welcome to ignore that if it makes you happy.

Hobby Lobby illegally purchased and imported thousands of antiquities looted from Iraqi museums.

They knew what they were doing.

Thats part of why their “museum” is frowned upon.

That and the stunning amount of items without any provenance beyond the word of shady antiquity “dealers”

The fact that you can't read the article shows. You are totally misrepresenting what is happening now and what happened in the past to push a particular political agenda.

This has nothing to do with export laws. The documents were the property of Oxford in a collection that he oversaw. Now Oxford discovered that he sold the documents.

Also, ancient artifacts are protected regardless of their value. That is what keeps their value in check. If every patch of dirt in Italy could be excavated and whatever is found sold on the international market, there would be a crazy land rush.

So no. The rules never changed. They were not his items, they were Oxford's. And Hobby Lobby is totally accurate. They're a hate-filled group that somehow people still shop from.

You are also significantly and intentionally warping what happened with some of their prior dealings where they smuggled artifacts into the country. They had to pay a 3 million dollar fine, return 3800 stolen items, when they intentionally forged documents. They didn't "not have a proper chain of custody" they faked the import country and contents of shipments to get them past customs after being repeatedly warned about not doing this. This is just a matter of looking up on wikipedia.

When you lie to protect an evil corporation like Hobby Lobby, you don't get to say that somehow other people are bigots. Why is it that the Christian right in the US is ok with lying all the time? Isn't there a commandment in the bible about this?

Your post is extremely misleading with respect to the Iraqi antiquities case. Here is the Government's complaint in that case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/978096/.... And here is the stipulation of settlement entered into by the Government and Hobby lobby: http://www.artcrimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/3....

First, "they" did not "intentionally forg[e] documents" or "fak[e] the import country and contents." The government never accused them of that. That conduct is all attributed to Hobby Lobby's dealers, which are addressed under the heading "Additional in rem Defendants" in the complaint. The government never alleges that Hobby Lobby knew about any of that conduct.

Second, Hobby Lobby did not "pay a 3 million fine." That implies that the government proved the allegations in the complaint. It is critical to understand that the government didn't need to prove that Hobby Lobby itself did anything wrong or knew anything. The government seized the incoming shipment under civil asset forfeiture. Under the customs laws, it only needed to establish that it was more likely than not that the items were exported in violation of Iraqi law. Hobby Lobby, as the buyer, had the right to contest that allegation, but it could not prevail simply by showing that it was innocent.

Hobby Lobby agreed to forfeit the items and settle for $3 million, but the stipulation of settlement does not admit wrongdoing. The company has consistently maintained that its dealers told it the origin of the items was Israel, and that their failure was not exercising proper precautions in verifying that information.

The law rightly sets a high bar for accusations of intent, but when someone who is knowledgeable about the antiquities market turns up as the recipient of misappropriated property in multiple cases, it raises questions of both intent and ethics.

Your post persuasively refutes some of the claims in the post you are replying to. As you present it, however, neither party seems to have had much reason to raise the issue of intent, and consequently your narrow focus on the legal claims does not go far towards resolving that question.

> The law rightly sets a high bar for accusations of intent

It doesn't. The bar for making an accusation is merely having a good faith belief that you will be able to prove the existence of intent. You don't even need evidence in order to make the allegation. It is therefore critical to note that the government didn't accuse Hobby Lobby of knowingly or intentionally buying looted artifacts. While intent isn't an element of the civil forfeiture claim, if there was a good faith basis for asserting intent or knowledge, it would have been added for "color."

> They're a hate-filled group

That's quite a claim - by the definition of "hate", you're saying that the individuals who run Hobby Lobby "feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone)".

You may not like certain specifics of their employee healthcare policy, but having such a policy does not imply hate on their part -- such a conclusion doesn't follow logically. Or is there another fact that would imply hatred on their part?

> You may not like certain specifics of their employee healthcare policy, but having such a policy does not imply hate on their part

I personally disagree, and I disagree strongly.

You're saying that in order to enact such a policy, a person would have to feel "intense or passionate dislike" for certain people.

I don't see the logical connection between the two. Could you explain how the one implies the other?

How on earth did you get that from what I said?

I think they are a hateful group because they so vehemently wanted to deny medical access through their mandated healthcare program.

> How on earth did you get that from what I said?

You said you disagree with my statement that "having such a policy does not imply hate on their part" -- which I take to mean you think having such a policy does imply hatred. I just repeated that, but replaced the word "hate" with its definition -- "feeling intense or passionate dislike for (someone)".

> I think they are a hateful group because they so vehemently wanted to deny medical access through their mandated healthcare program.

You're using emotionally loaded terms that assume a particular attitude on their part. My point is that if you don't start by assuming any particular attitude and evaluate their actions alone, those actions don't necessarily imply an intense dislike for anyone (i.e. hatred).

Your comment crosses into personal attack. That breaks the site guidelines and we ban accounts that do that, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment is.

You also can't take HN threads into religious flamewar, and we ban accounts that do that as well, so please don't do that either.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: I should add that there's a fine factual comment struggling to get out of what you wrote there; had you edited out the personal and flamey bits, the comment would be a good contribution to the thread. Unfortunately the guidelines violations cause more harm than the factual information adds value.

These criteria are reasonable, but it seems to me that they also need to be applied to the grandfather post. Surely, it's not OK to preemptively fling accusations of anti-Christian "bigotry" against people who would like "Christian" businessmen to take that "shalt not steal" bit more seriously?

Yes, that bit was flamebait. I didn't see it earlier, and have replied now.

Religious flamewar grows exponentially. First step flamebait, second step flame comment, third step entire thread flamewar. What it does to the site, exercise for the reader.

> (I wish I could read this article, but my usual NYT tricks aren't working.)

I use netsurf so I don't have to fiddle with things. The page just loads so I can read stuff and see pictures. Any minimalist browser should work.

You are trying really hard to obfuscate the issues here. The accusation is that Obbink stole the fragments and sold them.

Using the correct name of the corporation to which he sold the stolen fragments is not "a fun way to denigrate the people involved".

As far as the museum, given their clear willingness to skirt legal and ethical boundaries in the acquisition of these artifacts, it's a major problem that these are the people own such a vast collection of important history.

That crosses into personal attack and breaks the site guidelines. Please edit such swipes out of what you post to HN.

Unless it's already been edited, that comment is in no way a personal attack. Not even close.

Of course this is all open to interpretation, but in the way we interpret the site guidelines for moderation purposes, "You are trying really hard to obfuscate the issues here" is crossing into personal attack. Note that phrase "crossing into"—it's meant to imply an errant elbow rather than charging at someone. Both are penalties but the latter is worse.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and note this bit: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

>they have "Bible" in their museum name, and that gets all the bigots out in arms.

Your post admits they broke the law.

It's not bigoted to insist rich, religious people follow the low.

The opposite in fact: it's the height of entitlement for a group that holds oversized sway on the political process to refuse to obey the few laws that exist to stymie them.

+1

When random comments on HN carry more journalistic heft than NYT articles titled like Reddit posts we have a problem!