`  ==Primary source WP:OR and the use of antique references== I would like to remind you to please read WP:OR and to avoid inferences based on WP:Primary sources. In this edit you added a statement and added a reference to page 353 a book that provides just the text of Book 4, Chapter 5 of an ancient text in Wikisource. There is in fact no need to use a book reference there, and just a Wikisource link would be best there given that Wikisource is the general direction of Wikipedia. Now, by virtue of the absence of ``any other material`` except the primary text that edit in itself, was against WP:OR given that the commentary ``the above passage ... is directly contradicted ..`` was by you, not the source. That statement actually has WP:RS sources that could be used, but you did not use them. Please avoid running against WP:OR in the future, so other editors do not have to ``clean it up`` afterwards. Your help will be greatly appreciated.  I also would like to remind you to follow WP:RS guidelines and use modern scholarly sources. In this edit you used a source published in 1905. That is not the best way to represent modern scholarship in Wikipedia, as required by WP:RS which states: ``some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories``. There may be better, modern references for that type of statement. We should all strive not to turn Wikipedia into an ``intellectual antique store``. Thank you.   `