User talk:RaulOlmos

Welcome!

Hello, RaulOlmos, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have bolded some portions above regarding "logical arguments." Wikipedia do not use original research, it only summarizes published academic works on topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is for. It is a general reference work for the general public. It is not the place to "prove" anything. It does not try to "disprove" the "myths" perpetuated by some "establishment" that hides the "truth" from people. It is not the place to gain any academic notoriety.

Wikipedia merely summarizes what one would find if they went to a good local library (or Google Books) and researched a given topic for a bit.

Regarding "surrender knowledge" - We do not create or own knowledge, we merely pass it on. Surrendering knowledge would be reducing knowledge to posting one's personal opinions on this site as fact and calling it a day, instead of properly engaging with academia through proper study of and a well-argued thesis based on a contrast of historical and contemporary works on a topic being submitted to a scholarly journal for peer-review (more on that in a bit).

Regarding "to people rich enough to publish books" - If someone has to pay to get their book published, it shouldn't be published. Most publishing companies will gladly pay an author that doesn't suck for the opportunity to print the author's work.

Regarding "aknowledged by other professionals" - They have to cite their sources as well, though they are a bit more free to cite primary sources provided they have excellent arguments. I recommend spending some time in college, you find out there's this thing called peer-review, where multiple persons with different agendas look at new academic findings to ensure neutrality. This concept makes garbage less likely to appear in scholarly journals and makes crackpots less likely to get a respectable degree, without censoring potentially unpopular but well-evidenced theories.

And as for the math comparison to your Biblical interpretation: that's not even like comparing apples and oranges, that's like comparing apples and orangutans. Math is either right or wrong. Literature is multifaceted, especially deeply symbolic and philosophical literature like the Bible. What one says about any text, especially religious texts, often says more about themselves than the text itself. It takes years of study and practice to look at a text and instead of giving one's own interpretation, give interpretations common to different social and historical groups. Because there is no way to verify if any user on this site has that sort of training, the only solution is to restrict interpretation of texts to merely presenting what academia has documented as popular or well-argued interpretations. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]