Hello, Beebledum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Thinker78 (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Rachel, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. My contribution was not original research or any other of the things you mention. It simply repeated what the Bible says on the subject of Rachel and Ephrath which anyone can check by reading the original. Every statement in what I wrote in my piece is backed by a citation or direct quotation from the Bible or is a reasonable inference from it. Are you saying that that is against Wikipedia policies? If so, Wikipedia regularly breaches its own policies. Or are you saying that the Bible is not a reliable published source for what it, itself says? It is the most published work in the world and the primary source of everything in it. Are you saying that primary sources do not count as published sources and must be backed by secondary sources? That is the opposite of the academic position. Primary sources always take precedence over secondary ones. Many statements in the original piece fall foul of that principle. I could simply have torn it to pieces by pointing out each instance of where it contradicts or simply ignores what the Bible—the only definite source on this topic—says about it. But that is not something I do. If that is against Wikipedia policy you need to bring your policy into line with academic practice. And restore my piece to where it was so others can read and judge it for themselves. Beebledum (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]