User talk:SalamisDragon

Reply about Sources
By your reasoning then Wikipedia itself would not meet your criteria as a reliable source. A lot of stupid academic writings are out there so in the end the supporting evidence is what should be the criteria, not whether some person considers another to be an "authority." I agree with Olmsted that the supporting evidence for the "authoritative version" is simply not there. His revolutionary idea that these inscriptions are in Akkadian instead of some early form of Hebrew is important and he he supports his point of view better than the alternative "authoritative" point of view.

Finally, suppressing a well supported but alternative point of view is censorship pure and simple. Truth comes about by considering several, well supported, points of view. You seem to be a high level editor but if you insist on censorship I will seek an appeal. SalamisDragon (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And another thought, the posting on Wikipedia of the "authoritative" translation is a violation of the original journal's copyright  unless Wikipedia has explicit approval for its use. Fair Use doctrine generally does not include copy and pasting whole translations. I myself would not have simply copied such a translation from a journal onto this site. In contrast, Olmsted's site explicitly says his translations are under the Creative Commons share-alike license. SalamisDragon (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Missed this, perhaps you saved it with an error in the ping and then resaved. You are right, we can't use our own articles as sources. I've explained more on the talk page, where I moved your post to the bottom. No censorship, just applying our policy - we aren't a free for all. And I apologise, I had meant to delete the existing translation. I've done that now and am discussing whether a couple of lines can be restored. Doug Weller (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)