Talk:Levite's concubine

Much of this topic is covered at Battle_of_Gibeah#The_Outrage_of_Gibeah Vexations (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In-text attribution

A cursory reading reveals that much of the text is presented as fact. Particularly with regard to the section - “meaning and interpretation”. I’ve removed this section. It’s really important to mention which biblical scholars are being quoted. That section in the previous version of this page read like an essay and without the required attribution, seemed to be original research.

I’ve been bold in removing that section. Don’t worry: It’s still there in the history, but if it’s reintroduced to the article, it should be with adequate sourcing and it should be made clear where the sources and opinions came from using actual text, not just citations to books or other materials.

Many thanks!

Edaham (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. While it's possible that the 2 cites well summarize scholarly consensus, it's more likely that it's more complicated, so their interpretations should be theirs, not WP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Gråbergs. With that in mind I've edited the following text: "Deirdre Brour, writing for the Priscilla Papers, a peer reviewed journal on issues of biblical equality, writes: 'By equating ‘rape’ with doing the ‘good in their eyes,’ the text makes a powerful rhetorical statement by connecting a key theme throughout Judges with the rape of the concubine: Everyone was doing what was good in their eyes, but evil in God’s eyes."

I've added not just the writer's name, as the writer may or may not be notable for writing on this subject (I'm not sure), but also the journal from where the passage was sourced. Additionally, I've very briefly described what the journal deals with and added a wikilink. This I think is sufficient, as if other writers come along and add similar attribution it will be clear to a reader of this page that

1. The text doesn't all come from one place or one authority on the subject
2. It's not wikipedia's text
3. The sourced text is written from a particular perspective

This makes it easier for the reader to use discretion when weighing up the info presented in the article. Many thanks for your contributions Dimadick Edaham (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would add something descriptive about the author and just wikilink the publication (maybe, but seems a good call here), but "Deirdre Brour" gave me 1 google hit, this WP-article. I could not confirm "peer reviewed" in the source in Priscilla Papers [1] but found this at PP's webpage: [2]. I'm ignorant in these matters, so I ask: Is what PP/WP means by "peer reviewed" the same thing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's relevant in context that PP is published by Christians for Biblical Equality, but adding that too will make the text very clunky. How about "the Priscilla Papers, a Christian egalitarian journal"...? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That change seems warranted. If the author isn't well-known then I think it's probably better to reference as you suggest. Peer reviewed can be taken out as (aside from whether it is or is not) I'm not even sure how necessary any peer review standard is for this field on Wikipedia. Certainly MEDRS standards don't apply here. I think we can just mention it without puffing up its status. It says it is peer reviewed on it's own article on WP, but we don't need to parrot that here. I've made the change you suggested already. Edaham (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and quite agree on the medicine, different standards apply. A (secondary) source could be a hundred years old or more and still be interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks also, there’s numerous passages in the article which require similar treatment, but I don’t have time at the moment. I’ll check back periodically and see what I can do - if anything :). Edaham (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)