204:
to name a few) and so it feels to me like undue weight to present
Mitchell's view as if it is the main response to/alternative to/development of Wilson's thesis. It may be that some of those other views should be included as well, or that Wilson's proposal should be the focus of the section, or it may be that the consensus is with you that Mitchell's view is equally significant as Wilson's. I think this is a better discussion to have on the article's talk page, so we can see what other editors think and try to find a
273:. While you and I both might be interested in, and even have expertise in, this topic, I think we are in heading towards (and probably have already, particularly the last paragraph in the section) including original research in the Psalms article under Editorial Agenda. Any time an editor includes their opinion, analysis, or even synthesis of published sources, that is what WP calls "original research" and it is not allowed. This is what makes WP an encyclopaedia (a
486:
22:
277:) rather than an academic journal or such. The distinction may seem subtle, and it may seem counter-intuitive, but it is important. A good example, I think, was on the Psalms of Ascents page. I had included a statement that "Many scholars" think something and referenced it to Hossfeld and Zenger. You disputed this saying "Hossfeld is only one person." The point, however, is that Hossfeld and Zenger is a
369:
28:
445:
281:, and THEY make the claim that "many scholars" think that. So the statement is referenced to them correctly. If, on the other hand, I was to cite five different scholars who I had independently read and make the claim that they represent "many scholars" thinking something, that would actually be original research - see
199:
Hi Ronny, sorry I had just not had a chance to get back to you. I'm not sure what you mean about a paragraph disappearing but I have not removed anything here - if you click on "View history" at the top of any page including this one you will be able to see exactly what has been added or removed and
203:
In terms of the Psalms article, personally I would not see Wilson and
Mitchell as "the two dominant views" as you do. I think Wilson's view is seminal, but since then any number of scholars as well as Mitchell have written on the topic (e.g. McCann, deClaissé-Walford, Grant, Gillingham, Nasuti just
297:
that discusses the range of views on the editing of the
Psalter, and we should summarise what that source (or sources) says, and cite the secondary source as the reference. There are already a number of good secondary sources cited in the article, commentaries on Psalms which consider a range of
181:
Thank you for your clarification. I feel that your editing of my comments showed bias. Could you please explain why you think Wilson's view is more important than
Mitchell's? Yes, I shall keep the links you set up. (I am unaware of any grammatical errors: perhaps you could explain.) But I shall
227:
regarding your comment about
Mitchell's work as "our publication." This may or may not be an issue, but understanding this could at the very least help you see why other editors (such as myself) might be reluctant to simply accept your additions to an article when they appear to be designed to
148:
I have reverted your reversion of my editing to the section in the Psalms article on
Editorial Agenda. Knowledge (XXG) works by other editors adapting, correcting, and changing one another's work - it is not enough for you to say that the changes were "unwarranted" and revert them. I had added
345:, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Knowledge (XXG). For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on
161:
regarding the information you are adding to the article (Mitchell's views) in that it is from your own publication. This means you should be particularly careful about inserting it and discuss proposed changes on the article's talk page before including them.
298:
scholars view for example, which would be good starting places for this. If you would like to do some work on this that would be great, or I'm happy to - although it won't be quick as I am quite busy at the moment. If you can have a read through the
232:
editor with an agenda. I hope that makes sense, please have a look at those articles and know that I am not trying to "accuse" you of anything, but rather clarify and make you aware of some of guidelines at wikipedia - which works by
222:
Hi Ronny, obviously still waiting to see if any other editors want to contribute to the discussion at the article talk page. In the meantime, I am wondering if you would be willing to clarify whether you do or do not have a
153:
to certain positions. Please attempt to understand the work other editors do rather than simply reverting, and if necessary, engage in a discussion with reasons why you disagree with their editing. Also, this edit summary
497:
from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to
Knowledge (XXG), there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
292:
for
Mitchell's views, just as Wilson's work is a primary source for Wilson's views. You or I then considering how to explain the significance, weight or acceptance of these views is original research. What we need is a
621:
Also note that
Knowledge (XXG) articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Knowledge (XXG) project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in
182:
restore the comments on
Mitchell's work, so that Wilson and Mitchell each have six lines. I trust you will agree that the two dominant views on the redaction of the Psalms ought to be treated with equal respect.
35:
42:. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Knowledge (XXG):
465:
to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
391:
very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the
265:. I have however been doing some thinking and re-reading of wikipedia policies and I think there are two that might be particularly helpful in resolving this issue:
255:
Hi Ronny, thanks for your message. I will reply here but probably also make some comments on the article talk page. Have you had a look at the links I posted above?
460:
494:
76:
228:
promote the views of one particular scholar with whom you may have an external relationship of some kind, which can also make you look like you might be a
576:
258:
By the way, you can reply to me here if it is easier - because of this conversation, I am "watching" this page so will be notified when you respond here.
87:
56:
575:
be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See
623:
422:
346:
630:
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be
338:
408:
39:
550:
456:
403:
331:
71:
538:
261:
Yes at this stage there doesn't seem to be other editors interested, although it has not actually been very long and there is
61:
519:
634:
from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —
515:
631:
614:
confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see
591:
546:
354:
51:
46:
131:
98:
94:
407:
may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a
615:
561:
557:
388:
238:
603:
102:
83:
414:
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is
90:
using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
452:
392:
376:
342:
327:
470:
430:
350:
330:. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Knowledge (XXG) uses a set of
289:
302:
policy if you have not already that would be helpful. Let me know you thoughts after that. Thanks,
119:
262:
490:
282:
150:
642:
307:
246:
213:
167:
270:
493:
has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of
294:
185:
397:
266:
234:
229:
224:
205:
158:
534:
466:
426:
274:
109:
545:.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to
511:
299:
278:
38:, Ronny Cohen. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for
507:
21:
506:
amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
587:
542:
66:
635:
303:
242:
209:
163:
571:
own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you
530:
401:
to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Knowledge (XXG). The page on
610:
be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you
646:
474:
434:
358:
311:
250:
217:
193:
171:
149:
wikilinks and fixed grammar, as well as removing text that I thought gave
138:
444:
208:
around what should be included. I will start a discussion there. Thanks
541:. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples,
288:
So, with the editorial agenda, it seem to me that Mitchell's work is a
27:
97:! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on
421:
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the
25:
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
606:
before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources
443:
367:
525:
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information
337:
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from
598:
be possible to include greater portions of a source text.
549:
information and to demonstrate that the content is not
415:
155:
533:. Following the source's words too closely can create
489:
Hello Ronny Cohen. All or some of your addition(s) to
379:. However, it currently is missing information on its
556:Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is
115:on your talk page and ask your question there.
624:Knowledge (XXG):Copying within Knowledge (XXG)
577:Knowledge (XXG):Donating copyrighted materials
364:File copyright problem with File:CantataB.jpg
8:
543:hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue
93:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
411:and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
347:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions
20:
440:File:CantataB.jpg listed for discussion
451:A file that you uploaded or altered,
425:. Thanks again for your cooperation.
349:. Thank you for your cooperation. --
322:License tagging for File:CantataB.jpg
7:
518:in the sections on "text". See also
457:Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion
537:, so it is not permitted here; see
52:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
539:Knowledge (XXG):Close paraphrasing
14:
618:for the steps you need to follow.
510:(") and cite the source using an
77:Editor's index to Knowledge (XXG)
516:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content
484:
26:
586:(that is, for sources that are
527:in your own words and structure
522:, for how to cite sources here.
334:to indicate this information.
57:Contributing to Knowledge (XXG)
560:. You may also want to review
520:Help:Referencing for beginners
502:You can only copy/translate a
423:media copyright questions page
387:status. Knowledge (XXG) takes
1:
514:. You can read about this at
480:Knowledge (XXG) and copyright
271:Primary and Secondary Sources
34:Here's wishing you a belated
647:20:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
359:20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
237:and is not, for example, an
72:How to write a great article
662:
616:Knowledge (XXG):Plagiarism
602:, please seek help at the
562:Knowledge (XXG):Copy-paste
558:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights
279:reliable, secondary source
157:indicates that you have a
36:welcome to Knowledge (XXG)
312:02:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
251:03:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
139:15:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
103:Knowledge (XXG):Questions
475:23:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
435:11:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
375:Thank you for uploading
218:02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
194:21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
189:
172:06:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
395:. You may refer to the
269:and more specifically,
82:Also, when you post on
448:
416:a list of your uploads
409:request for undeletion
393:image description page
372:
31:
455:, has been listed at
447:
371:
326:Thanks for uploading
24:
332:image copyright tags
267:No Original Research
225:conflict of interest
159:conflict of interest
592:compatibly licensed
535:copyright problems
491:Messiah ben Joseph
449:
373:
62:How to edit a page
40:your contributions
32:
17:A belated welcome!
551:original research
459:. Please see the
453:File:CantataB.jpg
377:File:CantataB.jpg
328:File:CantataB.jpg
653:
640:
488:
487:
398:image use policy
370:
295:Secondary source
239:academic journal
177:Reply to Melcous
136:
129:
124:
118:Again, welcome!
114:
108:
30:
661:
660:
656:
655:
654:
652:
651:
650:
638:
584:very rare cases
512:inline citation
508:quotation marks
485:
482:
442:
368:
366:
351:ImageTaggingBot
324:
275:Tertiary source
179:
146:
132:
125:
120:
112:
106:
19:
12:
11:
5:
659:
657:
628:
627:
619:
580:
565:
554:
523:
481:
478:
441:
438:
404:copyright tags
365:
362:
323:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
290:primary source
286:
259:
256:
230:single purpose
201:
178:
175:
145:
142:
88:sign your name
80:
79:
74:
69:
64:
59:
54:
49:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
658:
649:
648:
644:
637:
633:
625:
620:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
588:public domain
585:
581:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
559:
555:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
496:
492:
479:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
458:
454:
446:
439:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
417:
412:
410:
406:
405:
400:
399:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
363:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
333:
329:
321:
313:
309:
305:
301:
296:
291:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
226:
221:
220:
219:
215:
211:
207:
202:
198:
197:
196:
195:
191:
187:
183:
176:
174:
173:
169:
165:
160:
156:
152:
143:
141:
140:
137:
135:
130:
128:
123:
116:
111:
104:
100:
96:
91:
89:
85:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
63:
60:
58:
55:
53:
50:
48:
45:
44:
43:
41:
37:
29:
23:
16:
629:
611:
607:
599:
595:
583:
572:
568:
529:, in proper
526:
503:
483:
461:
450:
420:
413:
402:
396:
384:
380:
374:
336:
325:
184:
180:
151:undue weight
147:
133:
126:
122:Aristophanes
121:
117:
99:my talk page
92:
81:
47:Introduction
33:
341:, click on
241:. Regards,
186:Ronny Cohen
105:, or place
86:you should
531:paraphrase
495:permission
467:Sfan00 IMG
462:discussion
427:Sfan00 IMG
101:, consult
95:Wikipedian
84:talk pages
67:Help pages
604:help desk
389:copyright
385:licensing
381:copyright
343:this link
339:this list
235:consensus
206:consensus
283:WP:RS/AC
200:by whom.
636:Diannaa
632:blocked
608:may not
600:However
304:Melcous
263:no rush
243:Melcous
210:Melcous
164:Melcous
594:), it
547:verify
144:Psalms
134:(talk)
110:helpme
504:small
300:WP:OR
643:talk
471:talk
431:talk
383:and
355:talk
308:talk
247:talk
214:talk
190:talk
168:talk
596:may
590:or
582:In
573:may
569:you
567:If
645:)
639:🍁
612:do
473:)
433:)
418:.
357:)
310:)
249:)
216:)
192:)
170:)
127:68
113:}}
107:{{
641:(
626:.
579:.
564:.
553:.
469:(
429:(
353:(
306:(
285:.
245:(
212:(
188:(
166:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
