User talk:SalamisDragon

Welcome!

Hello, SalamisDragon! 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
Contributing to Wikipedia Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Reliable sources Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs Talk pages User scripts

Sources

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

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]