User talk:Jennawoolley1

Welcome!
Hello, Jennawoolley1, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Early Dynastic Period (Egypt)
Hi. I see you are a student doing some work on Wikipedia. I reverted you partially because I thought one site was copied from another, but I see that I was wrong, as Jacques Kinnaer is the author of ancient-egypt.org and I see we use him as a source. Frankly I don't think we should as I believe that we should only use academic sources for this article, which is a pretty bad article and lacking any recent studies.

But your edits were still too closely paraphrased. Kinnear wrote:

The first row on the Palermo Stone contains names of kings who allegedly ruled Egypt before him. As our knowledge of this early stage of Egyptian history evolves, we are finding sources that hint at powerful rulers living in Middle and Upper Egypt who already had extended their influence, if not their realm, to parts of Lower Egypt. This information may correspond to the mythical rulers in the Turin King-list and to the names listed in the first row of the Palermo Stone, if not literally, then perhaps simply as a confirmation that the Ancient Egyptian chroniclers were aware of the existence of kings before Menes ... This has led some authors to propose that there may have been a Dynasty "0" before the 1st Dynasty.

You wrote "There is also evidence, inscribed on the Palermo Stone, of Kings and rulers that existed before the rule of Menes. This has caused some upset as to whether or not this truly was the first dynasty or not."

You could just copy text from Palermo Stone, ie "The Palermo Stone names some predynastic rulers of Upper and Lower Egypt, presumably referring to a time before Egypt was unified and sometimes referred to as "Dynasty 0". Identification of these kings with historical persons remains controversial." If you do copy text from one article to another, you must put something in the edit summary, eg "Copied from the article Palermo Stone ". And go ahead, use the source, it's poor but it's already been used. This also avoids the word "upset" which isn't formal enough. "Dispute" is a good word also.

Kinnear also wrote "It was the culmination of the formative stage of the Ancient Egyptian culture that began centuries before during the Prehistory. It was during this period that the divine kingship became well established as Egypt's form of government, and with it, an entire culture that would remain virtually unchanged for the next 3000 years."

You wrote "Through the early Dynastic Period, we see the establishment of Divine Kingship, and a hardy culture which would remain virtually unchanged for the next 3,000 years." That isn't exactly what Kinnear says, as the period he mentions covers a few centuries before the 1st Dynasty as well. And you text is again too closely paraphrased. Think about how you could reword this. I hope your teachers have given you some tips as to how to do this. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I have a few notes as well:
 * First, I noticed that you tagged your edits as minor - this tag is meant for small edits like fixing grammatical errors or a broken link to a source. Adding content to an article, even if it's only a sentence, is typically not seen as a minor edit, especially when it's mentioning a contentious claim.
 * Be extremely cautious with sourcing and make sure that the sourcing you use is the best possible source. I recommend using academic sourcing since those usually undergo a rigorous editorial process that makes it a better source than say, an Internet search engine result. This isn't to say that search engine results can't be good, just that the chances of pulling something that isn't reliable and/or based upon Wikipedia. This last part can be especially difficult, as many places like to draw from Wikipedia as a source. Academic sources can still be at risk of doing this, however they generally do more background checking than the average website.
 * Also be careful of close paraphrasing of content - this is still seen as a plagiarism and copyright issue, even if you cite the source, as Doug covered above. I can work with you on rephrasing content, if you like - let me know on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * An example of what you could write could be something like:
 * "Divine kingship became Egypt's main form of government and the country's rulers were worshiped as demigods and served as both rulers and religious leaders."
 * This both makes the claim and explains it a little. The information about this remaining in place for 3,000 with very few major changes still needs to be added, so that's something that you can work on adding. Feel free to use and tweak what I've written above, of course! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)