Your recent edits to King David have no reference or citation and really seem like personal opinions of the text rather than known views out of published biblical history and historical theology. Please provide citations from the text itself when summarizing the source and then from published works for comments on the text.
- Thank you for your comments. As I noted at the start of my larger posting, I do need to go back and dig out the original citations. This will take me some time because my source material is a series of filmed lectures, which I will need to re-obtain and then view "in real time". In the mean time, this has been posted to the discussion page and the lack of citations noted at the beginning of my major work. On the other hand, I certainly should have been more stringent in quoting biblical sources. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will correct it as soon as possible.
I appreciate the positive response. Were I in your shoes, I would compile all of this in your own sandbox before publishing to the article. Otherwise, someone more draconian than I might nix your hard work before you get a chance to substantiate it - argh, I hate that. Also, when I know ideas on the subject are not, with some ubiquity, accepted (or known) by experts, it helps to say something like "Scholars from such and such a worldview believe that...". For example, if you look at my comments on the Beatitudes, I have a paragraph which starts "One interpretation of narrative theologians..." This also help to preserve your hardwork. I.e., since the opinion is quantified, those who disagree are automatically given the right to disagree ;)
Start a discussion with Swift99
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Swift99. What you say here will be public for others to see.
