Welcome!

Hello, SalamisDragon! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 23:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Sources

edit

Please take a look at WP:VERIFY and [{WP:RS]]. We rarely used self-published sources, unless they are from a well recognised expert in the relevant field. Or if there has been significant discussion in sources that meet our reliability standards, which in this case would be academic sources. New editors usually don't understand that. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reply about Sources

edit

Doug Weller By your reasoning then Wikipedia itself would not meet your criteria as a reliable source. A lot of stupid academic writings are out there so in the end the supporting evidence is what should be the criteria, not whether some person considers another to be an "authority." I agree with Olmsted that the supporting evidence for the "authoritative version" is simply not there. His revolutionary idea that these inscriptions are in Akkadian instead of some early form of Hebrew is important and he he supports his point of view better than the alternative "authoritative" point of view.

Finally, suppressing a well supported but alternative point of view is censorship pure and simple. Truth comes about by considering several, well supported, points of view. You seem to be a high level editor but if you insist on censorship I will seek an appeal. SalamisDragon (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

And another thought, the posting on Wikipedia of the "authoritative" translation is a violation of the original journal's copyright unless Wikipedia has explicit approval for its use. Fair Use doctrine generally does not include copy and pasting whole translations. I myself would not have simply copied such a translation from a journal onto this site. In contrast, Olmsted's site explicitly says his translations are under the Creative Commons share-alike license. SalamisDragon (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Missed this, perhaps you saved it with an error in the ping and then resaved. You are right, we can't use our own articles as sources. I've explained more on the talk page, where I moved your post to the bottom. No censorship, just applying our policy - we aren't a free for all. And I apologise, I had meant to delete the existing translation. I've done that now and am discussing whether a couple of lines can be restored. Doug Weller (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply