Aeliach

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Aeliach. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Purim, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I will add: if you want to justify including your theory, you must (a) identify it as such, and (b) include the citation from Ha'aretz, as that might be considered a reliable source. I'm not sure if you can overcome COI if you do those things, but you surely cannot if you don't. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I will also add: The Ha'aretz citation is absolutely essential if you have any chance of overcoming WP:No original research. Again, I'm not sure it will be sufficient, because newspapers aren't typically reliable sources for content like this. But there's at least a chance. Citing only your own source sheet on Sefaria is unquestionably not sufficient to overcome WP:NOR.

Finally, you'd have to deal with the fact that right now your idea would have to be labeled as WP:FRINGE, and fringe theories do not necessarily get a hearing here. I actually think it's an interesting hypothesis—I'm not sure I buy it, but it's a thoughtful idea. But even if Rava really does think that way, the mainstream interpretation for nearly two millenia has been otherwise. So your best chance here, I think, is to ask on the talk page (Talk:Purim) if people would be comfortable adding it as a footnote as "a recent interpretation suggests...". But even if you overcome all the other problems, the chances are probably under 50-50 that you'll succeed. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)