User talk:Rogermountian

Welcome!
Hello, Rogermountian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! 17:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Need reliable secondary sources
Hi, I reverted your edit to British Israelism. We do not use our own interpretations of ancient religious texts to support claims in article. You need to find a reliable secondary source, like a good academic book or research paper, to support the kind of content you are proposing. Cheers...

Where in my post is "interpretation"? Please show me where this is. These are merely classical references and that is ALL. I did not know classical references were not able to be posted on Wikipedia, I am sorry. I see on many other post they are there. Why are they not allowed here? The tenants of British Israel as are plainly refuted at the top of this article are that the British are descended from the Israelites of the Bible. How then are physical descriptions in classical literature not relevant. Please respond and educate me please.


 * Are you the same person who operates the account ?  18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No I am not why? Also you call these "ancient religious text", well for starters Joseph is not religious text, he was a historian, these are historical texts by any definition. Also yes some are religious text, i.e. the Bible... the Bible is quoted else where in many places and full sections here on this page. Why are these religious text accepted sometimes but not others on the same page when the religious text is exactly the same?


 * I see. Any ancient historical text, including the Bible and Josephus, are primary sources and cannot be used directly to support claims in an article other than factual statements about what they say, and only with attribution to them, and usually only alongside a reliable secondary source.  What you need are modern academic texts that interpret these ancient texts and provide analysis and context.  Can you find those?    18:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You say they can be used (as they are in many places on this same page) "as factual statements about what they say", how is this not the case here? These are straight raw factual statements as from the classical writers. There is no "commentary" on every single line from historical texts related to the topic and I am not sure why they are needed. What comments, or modern analysis is needed of a primary classical reference? Again I can site many examples on this page were classical reference, i.e the Bible is quoted with out modern secondary commentary. I am confused sir. I just don't understand by it is accepted on other articles including this one but not else where?

Furthermore you did not answer my question as to where the interpretation is from me?


 * Sure, you put "And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome. And the LORD said, 'Arise, anoint him, for this is he.'" under "Evidence as found in Ancient physical descriptions of Israelites". This is a lot of interpretation of a source and it is disallowed by Wikipedia's rules.  The primary religious source is being interpreted to apply to British people and it is further being interpreted as evidence in support of British Israelism.  So you need to find a reliable academic secondary source to support this, you can't write article content that makes this connection without it.  There may be other articles that exhibit this problem too, and they are not a good place to look for what Wikipedia allows.  Cheers...   18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)