User talk:Rodin79

Welcome!
Hello, Rodin79, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Washington Heights, Manhattan did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

What is obectionable about first hand knowledge?
What is no original research?

Please help me with...First hand knowledge

Rodin79Rodin79 (talk) Rodin79 (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Original research is content that is either not verifiable or a result of individual research not published by independent reliable sources. Personal anecdotes and observations are not acceptable on an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Help me!
Why is so much tendentious and polemical work accepted as Neutral? Just because it's been published doesn't make it true or verifiable. Articles on Israel Palestine are replete with this kind of pseudo history.

Please help me with...

Rodin79Rodin79 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Rodin79 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias and does not offer equal time to all points of view. It all depends on what independent reliable sources state. We deal in what is verifiable, not what is "true", as what is true is in the eye of the beholder; see WP:TRUTH. If you want to challenge the validity or reliable nature of a source, you may do so at WP:RSN, but if your only argument is that the source does not describe the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in a manner that you agree with, I frankly wouldn't waste the time. As long as a source has a reputation for fact checking and editorial control, it it usually considered valid. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)