jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (12 posts)

How does one go about adding "common knowledge" sources to an article?

  1. Shesabutterfly profile image95
    Shesabutterflyposted 2 months ago

    The editor would like me to explain where some of the information has come from in an article that they have picked to move to Owlcation. Mainly, the history/background of the authors of the gospels. What is the best way to go about this? Being a Christian it is mostly common knowledge for me and I wrote this many years ago from old college notes. I took quite a few theology classes in college and combined several years of notes to create this article. It is actually an article that is related to one that I submitted to Owlcation two weeks ago, but have heard nothing back on that article. The related article has a little bit more depth on the authors, but it still does not have quoted sources. I could link to that article, but I don't think that would be helpful in the case of sources. I know history of the gospels is likely not common knowledge to people of other faiths, religions, and those who do not go to church, study theology, or even believe in God. What is the best way to explain my knowledge when I didn't use actual scholarly articles?

    Upon research I can see several other websites/blogs that say the same thing that I do, but you can also find skeptics and people who believe differently. As is the case with most philosophical/theological ideas/beliefs. What's the best way to explain in this particular situation? The editor didn't specifically ask for sources, but I'm assuming that's what they meant, if they want a further explanation of where the information came from. Wikipedia seems to mostly agree with what I'm saying, but I don't feel quoting or referencing Wikipedia is any more accurate. Would referencing my college classes be enough, as the teachers went to school for theology and that's what their degrees are in? Would that be considered a bias as they worked in churches and are obviously religious, not just scholarly? Thoughts?

    1. theraggededge profile image99
      theraggededgeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      One of the more useful aspects of Wikipedia is the list of references at the bottom of almost every page smile

  2. paradigmsearch profile image94
    paradigmsearchposted 2 months ago

    Still have any of your old college textbooks laying around? Post a list and call it a day. big_smile

  3. LoisRyan13903 profile image81
    LoisRyan13903posted 2 months ago

    Linking would be helpful or you can add a link at the bottom of the hub.  I had that problem when I wrote for Associated Content.  Basically "common knowledge" is what everyone should know.  While a lot of things I write about in the home remedies field is common to me, some people may not know, for example, what an anti-oxidant is.

  4. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 2 months ago

    If a source is being requested I guess the suggestion is that it is not common knowledge.  i can normally find a citation for most things via scholar.google.com--looking for open source materials that link to a full text on the right.

    1. Shesabutterfly profile image95
      Shesabutterflyposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I know "common knowledge" is not really the right phrase, but I couldn't think of a different way to word it. I think I found something that will actually compliment the article quite well. Thank you for the suggestion! I didn't know that site existed. The link is actually a book and it has a full history of the New Testament. Would you link to the chapter specific to what I'm talking about, or link to the book's full home page so they can pick what chapter they want to look at? For example it contains chapters on each of the individual gospels as well as chapters on the four gospels as a whole. The whole book pertains to my article with some great extras, but if I'm linking it specifically as a source for the author's background should I link to the chapter that focuses on all the gospels instead of the home page? The chapter that focuses on all the gospel's does not actually talk about the history though. Anyone wanting to look at the link would have to go back and find the chapters of each individual author and look there for that author's history/background. I wouldn't want to add too many links, but I'm wondering if the home page would be sufficient enough?

      1. psycheskinner profile image83
        psycheskinnerposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I generally add a list of sources at the bottom titles "Bibliography" or if I explicitly cited it in the hub "References".  Google scholar will also format sources in the three main reference formats if you hit the " symbol underneath the listing.  I generally use APA format.

      2. Marisa Wright profile image98
        Marisa Wrightposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        If you are referring to a source, linking to the front page is never enough.  You need to link to the specific page where the information sits. 

        Although I prefer a Bibliography after the Hub too, the official word from HubPages is that they prefer you to link within the text, where the reference occurs.

        1. Shesabutterfly profile image95
          Shesabutterflyposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Thank you. This is very helpful! I will need three different sources then unless I can find something more useful. Are three links going to be considered spammy if I were to do it within the text like HubPages likes? Would creating a bibliography make it less spammy?

          1. Marisa Wright profile image98
            Marisa Wrightposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Links are considered spammy if:

            1.  They are not directly related to the MAIN topic of the Hub, OR

            2. They are self-promotional, OR

            3.  They link to websites that are primarily selling a product, rather than providing good information (however, it's NOT spammy if the product is relevant to the topic and you provide a review and a personal recommendation to buy it).

            Otherwise, links are fine.  A myth has grown up that "HubPages doesn't like links" or "HubPages doesn't like you sending readers off site".  Neither is true.  Just go take a look at almost any article on HealDove and you'll see it's peppered with a sea of blue reference links!     

            My personal view - I don't like to see SO many in an article because as a reader, I find that distracting. But I would have no problem with 5 or 6.   

            Bottom line - if links are relevant, add value to the reader, and aren't placed purely for your own gain, they are usually fine.   There was one editor who seems to have misunderstood that and was making authors remove their links - but there was a forum conversation about it, and Robin said that editor had been spoken to.  So it shouldn't be a problem now.

  5. Terrielynn1 profile image94
    Terrielynn1posted 2 months ago

    You have to add a section of reasorces for that content of your article. Something like this. The name of the type of bible used. the chapeters and verses that support the statement or info used. Bible info is not commpn knowledge. Anything you site will and can be found in the bible. info on the men who wrote it can also be found there. Wikipedia is not a biblical sorce.

    1. Shesabutterfly profile image95
      Shesabutterflyposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I quoted the bible where I could. Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous and I'm not going to find the author's history located in the gospels. I can quote the bible where it talks about Matthew for example in the gospel of Matthew, but no where am I going to find a passage that specifically says he wrote the gospel or that the tax collector talked about in Matthew is actually the author of the gospel. Likewise I could compare Acts and Luke and show how scholars have said it shows Luke is the author of the gospel, but I will not find exact scripture to back up Luke being the author. I would have to piece several different versus from different books to try and prove what I've said about each author's history.

      I own several bible's and the only one that specifically talks about the history of the authors (in a margin on the first introduction page) is a women's devotional bible. However, this bible also contains a subject index, reading plans, reflections, and other supplementary readings to help readers dive deeper into the bible. None of my other standard bibles contain concrete evidence of the author's history. I can reference my women's devotional bible and the page numebr, but I would not be able to quote the bible as it is not located in scripture, rather it's simply extra information in this one particular bible.

 
working