 | This user is a participant in WikiProject English Royalty |
 | This user is a participant in WikiProject Women's History. |
- Hello. I am an archaeologist, historian, lecturer and author. My working life has been spent trying to make the past interesting, to bring it 'to life' for the present day, while preserving complete accuracy and relevance. In my teaching I have covered areas from the origins of homo sapiens to modern history. I am also interested in the history of women in different periods, locations and classes of society. Recently I have been updating research on Blanche Parry, the confidante of Queen Elizabeth I. I am very happy to help, where I can, anyone who is seeking information and evidence about the past. I cannot help with formatting though - sorry. I am very happy to discuss people and issues. The reason I am placing this on here is that I am looking forward to receiving contributions from others as the past belongs to us all.BethANZ (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BethANZ
WIKIPEDIA & WILLIAM TYNDALE
It is proved that 93 per cent of the New Testament of The King James' Bible / Authorised Version was translated by William Tyndale. In addition, more than 85 per cent of the five first books of The Old Testament, in the same volume was translated by Tyndale. His preface (to his New Testament), written in 1525, speaks for ordinary people with touching and resolute transparency. To his readers, he suggests: 'if they perceived in any places that I have not obtained the very sense of the tongue, or meaning of the scripture, or have not given the right English word, that they put to their hands to amend it, remembering that so is their duty to do.'<ref Melvyn Bragg, 2017, 'William Tyndale', SPCK, page 30/ref>
This is my aim and it should be Wikipedia's too according to your stated aim.
However, if Tyndale was writing now he could NOT write on Wikipedia because he would be thought to be an expert. Instead, incredibly, newspaper sources appear to be considered to be accurate in preference to published research as written by those who have actually researched the topic. I have also found the suggestion that multiple sources are more likely to be correct than a single primary source. Unfortunately, this may be completely wrong as multiple sources can often be traced back to a single suspect source that is perhaps wrong.
Researchers should be allowed to take part. At the moment, unlike in earlier years, researchers are prevented from contributing what they have discovered. Wikipedia deserves better than this. If a researcher quotes facts, properly referenced, from his/her published book or article or paper then this information should be permitted while making it clear that it has been included by the researcher himself/herself. There should be an icon to show this. No researcher will do this unless prepared to follow Tyndale's precept that others can comment. Wikipedia would be far more respected if properly researched information can also be included openly by those who know what they are talking about.
PLEASE, PLEASE WIKIPEDIA ALLOW THIS SENSIBLE CHANGE. BethANZ