Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Luba Goy has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Noformation
Talk
02:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your
edits to Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edits had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept
unsourced material or
original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished
synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by
reliable,
verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an
inline citation, which you can learn to make
here. Where matters of controversy or analysis of creative works are concerned, the source must not merely contain the material you add to the article, but must give that material in explicit reference to the creative work in question. In other words, a reliable source that explains why the novel is inaccurate in some respect is acceptable; a source that merely contains the information you wish to contrast with the novel's content, but which does not make any mention of that work, is not. Employing a source in the latter fashion is
synthesis, which is a form of original research. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of
my talk page. Thanks.
Nightscream (
talk)
20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This section mentions the ink matching that of an existing forgery, but the "ink tests" (PDF). indicated they were different from those used in the Gospel of John (despite speculation that they might be the same). The linked citation is also to a paywalled opinion article, which is unfortunate on both counts.
The lack of reed pen, and what appear to be copies of improper text from the Gospel of Thomas are some evidence that it may be a hoax, as is the provenance described in "The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus's Wife".
This looks like a possible NPOV issue.
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to
Luba Goy has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
Noformation
Talk
02:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your
edits to Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edits had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept
unsourced material or
original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished
synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by
reliable,
verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an
inline citation, which you can learn to make
here. Where matters of controversy or analysis of creative works are concerned, the source must not merely contain the material you add to the article, but must give that material in explicit reference to the creative work in question. In other words, a reliable source that explains why the novel is inaccurate in some respect is acceptable; a source that merely contains the information you wish to contrast with the novel's content, but which does not make any mention of that work, is not. Employing a source in the latter fashion is
synthesis, which is a form of original research. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of
my talk page. Thanks.
Nightscream (
talk)
20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
This section mentions the ink matching that of an existing forgery, but the "ink tests" (PDF). indicated they were different from those used in the Gospel of John (despite speculation that they might be the same). The linked citation is also to a paywalled opinion article, which is unfortunate on both counts.
The lack of reed pen, and what appear to be copies of improper text from the Gospel of Thomas are some evidence that it may be a hoax, as is the provenance described in "The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus's Wife".
This looks like a possible NPOV issue.
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |