User talk:Danflo78

Please don't add unreferenced speculation to Wikipedia articles, such as Ecclesiastes. For more details, refer to the policy of verifiability. (As far as I know, the Preacher of the book of Ecclesiastes is meant to be the king Solomon, even though - as scholars believe - he is not the true author of the book.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, unless your claim can be attributed to a reliable source, please don't add it to Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastes

I was the editor who removed most of your additions to Ecclesiastes. It is an interesting theory that Kohelet may have been a female, but Wikipedia is not the forum to posit theories unless they have been expressed elsewhere and achieved a certain degree of notability. Therefore, even a privately published book or a somewhat speculative article in a little-known local Bible study newsletter will not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for sufficient balance and notability.

If you have further questions on the comments made by myself and by Mike Rosoft, please drop a message on my talkpage. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I have received your rather long email. Unless the matter is sensitive or personal, I would prefer to keep discussions about Wikipedia articles on-wiki.

In your email you state that you presented "The Qoheleth, Jerusalem's Female Preacher" at the Society of Biblical Literature's International Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland on July 6, 2006. This generates the following problems:

As originator of the theory, you may have a conflict of interest in having the theory given airtime on Wikipedia
If the theory has not been cited or covered in other sources, "no original research" may apply
If the theory is not quite mainstream, there may be an issue of lending disproportionate credence to the theory on a general source like Wikipedia

Before you contemplate reinserting your contributions, please carefully read the content policies and guidelines I have quoted. You may also want to provide a short summary of the relevant sources on Talk:Ecclesiastes. This will enable contributors to that article to review these sources and judge them on their merit. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talkpage. I think you misunderstand the WP:NOR policy. You are using sources that state that the word Kohelet is female and try to advance the view that Kohelet himself was female. That is still original research, and might be better classified as a synthesis of other sources that is still innovative.

If you want the "female Kohelet" theory to be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia, which I think is not a good idea at the present time, I would suggest you discuss this further on Talk:Ecclesiastes in the first instance. JFW | T@lk 17:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]