User talk:Noxiyu/sandbox

This is my suggestion for the section Origins of the Hebrew Bible /etc. on the Hebrew Bible page. I'll come back to proof read it a little better soon. The greatest problem is that when you link to the Documentary Hypothesis that is also very flawed. So, maybe I'll try tackle some of that too, to show the history of biblical criticism in this area.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

for anyone who would like to give me some feedback on what to do next with this. I wrote this here as I am new to wiki and didn't want to go straight into editing pages, however, there's not much I can do for now.

Noxiyu, if you want to make a (potentially) controversial edit to a page, start a conversation on the talk page (for example Talk:Hebrew Bible) in order to gain consensus. That way, you can ease your way into editing and you don't make anyone angry. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, the IRC channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I have begun a conversation on the talk page, I'll try linking my suggested edit there so people can see what I'm suggesting. Although I am re-writing a section, I'm not sure how controversial the edit would be for the Hebrew Bible edit - as in - I think a few people have already acknowledged how limited the current section I've tried rewriting is. Changing what is on the documentary hypothesis page would, however, be controversial, because of how much debate on the subject has been made. Is there a good way I can tag my suggestion to get other people to notice my suggestion and respond? Noxiyu (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, for a start. I think it is good that you have started here. We try to encourage new talent. That might not happen if this were suddenly replaced in the article!

Was Wellhaven already mentioned in an earlier subsection? It is generally best to say what something is than what something is not. The material may belong (edited) in the bio about Wellhaven or his works, if there is one.

I would rather read "Genesis was written from the 12th century BC to the 9th century BC.(cite) The Pentateuch was written from ....." Concrete statements, backed up by WP:RS. I would pretty much forget Wellhaven, other than to say (if you think he'll be missed, "Wellhaven, once regarded as an expert in dating text, is no longer so regarded.(cite). His dates were generally older/younger, bases on presumed Exodus dates (whatever)...(cite).

I would double-cite everything, using different schools of thought, if possible. Less likely to be contradicted.

These controversial articles are kind of a bad place to start editing, because nearly every new entry is debated ad infinitum! I would eventually move your section (if you must) onto the talk page, because it is large enough to be fought over. Normally, we would just dump it into the article, get it reverted, then discuss it! :(

Don't you have some small hometown article you want to contribute to? Some team? Some band? Edits there would be treated a bit more gently.

We'd like to keep you as an editor! Student7 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]