Talk:Key of Solomon

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaynahess, Trudogfootball. Peer reviewers: Jaynahess.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on 21 Oct 2006[edit]

This article was mangled on Aug 25 by edits from IP 69.231.162.179. The only edits from this IP address have been to remove sections from the article. Nothing has been added to this (or any other) article by edits from that IP.

Versions of this article prior Aug 25 contain good information on the contents of the Key. I've reverted this article to re-include all the details; but copy over the addition made on Aug 29 by Fuzzypeg and the link to the Portugese version added on 20 October. Dr algorythm 21:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is book is not authoritative in Judaism thus i am removing it from Jewish mysticism and jewish texts note stuff is derived from jewish sources but the quran stole stuff from the jews too--Jesusmyth 06:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverted edits[edit]

I've reverted some large additions made to the article. Two sections had been added. The first, regarding Pseudo-Solomon, claimed that Solomon was probably a name adopted by a later magician in imitation of the biblical Solomon. No references were given for this theory, and it sounds unlikely to me. A simpler explanation would have been that whoever compiled these texts attributed them to Solomon to give the documents greater authority. Either way, such theories need to be attributed to a reputable author to appear in the article, otherwise they are considered original research.

The second paragraph was a very lengthy quote regarding the document's mythical history, taken from the introduction of the Key, which I have replaced with a much briefer summary of the story. Rather than include such lengthy quotes we should provide references to sources which our readers can follow if they're interested. Fuzzypeg ★ 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "In polular culture"[edit]

I am remvoing this section per WP:TRIVIA, WP:CRYSTAL (in the case of Dan Brown's upcoming book), WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE and a host of other policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please no Spamming[edit]

Spam and vandalism will be reverted hastily. Please don't.Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources?[edit]

I actually own this book, so I could pick out a few pages to reference through Google books if that would help in the "contents" section where more sources seem to be needed, I'm just not certain what is expected. Also, would a redirect from "King Solomon's Clavicle" to this page be out of order? Hit up my talk page if this sounds acceptable. Spetheric (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly attributed?[edit]

I'm sorry, I have a small problem with the use of "incorrectly attributed" without citation. Incorrect is a quite definitive word thus the need for citation. I'm not exactly arguing, but could anyone suggest a better way of stating that, or at least provide a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tm008 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Falsely?" There is no way a book that traces to the late middle ages was written by a bronze age king. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]