User talk:Chubberson

Lion of War
Welcome to wikipedia. I'm sorry to have to tell you that I have been deleting the references to "Lion of War" that you have been inserting into articles. I'm doing this to keep the articles in accordance with wikipedia's standards of notability. "Lion of War" may well be excellent, but in order to get into wikipedia things have to be "notable", which means they have already acquired fame to some degree. We strongly wish to prevent the encyclopedia's being used for advertising. Notability (books) will give you a flavor of what we are looking for. Just to be mentioned in another article is a less stringent requirement than giving a book an article of its own, but only slightly so. Please respond here if you'd like further advice. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your letting me know what was happening, I was becoming quite frustrated. It seems like all of the books mentioned under the Literature section of the King David entry are critical of the biblical account of him, and I was merely trying to insert something I found that appears to give a conservative slant on it in order to bring balance. I understand now the criteria for books, but I believe it would be more fair to present works of literature that do not simply endorse the negative scholarly assessment of biblical figures. I do appreciate your help and clarification very much. I am having a bit of trouble understanding your last sentence about just being mentioned in another article. What would it take to be able to be mentioned in an article?Chubberson (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that last sentence wasn't very carefully phrased, but there are perhaps two ways in which a book can be mentioned even though not notable in itself.
 * The first is when the book belongs in some notable list of books. For example, all the books written by a notable writer can be listed in his article. There are articles which are lists of books which belong to some series, or have won some award.
 * The second, which applies only to non-fiction, is when a book is being used as a source. Books of this sort have to be recognised as reliable, and to contain evidence to back up what is said in an article.
 * You mention "to give a conservative slant on it in order to bring balance". You are quite right in principle to seek balance, as required by WP:NPOV. As far as the fictional accounts go, we have to accept what artists and writers have done and said, but I think there's an adequately positive balance - certainly in the statues! If there is a critical slant within the scholarly material and if you know of a scholarly book which defends David, and which can be used to back up some addition to or modification of the words in the article, that should be welcome.
 * One final point I should in fairness mention. I had formed the impression that you might be closely associated with the author or publisher of "Lion of War". If so, you need to be careful to respect the terms of wikipedia's conflict of interest policies. If I'm mistaken in that thought, please let me know. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)