User talk:1234567: Difference between revisions

User talk:1234567 (view source)

Revision as of 01:21, 30 April 2013

6,103 bytes added , 30 April 2013

no edit summary

Axius

Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, Editors, oversight, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators

19,746

edits

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ::As for the unjust treatment of wives, I think the story about food distribution belongs in the article about Zaynab. For each wife, I shall be writing about how she got along with her co-wives. So any story that involves interactions between two or more of the wives will be included on the page of the wife whom Muhammad married latest. E.g., I have written about how Aisha (second wife) was jealous of the other women but not included specifics about those women. Aisha's general relationship with Sawda (third wife - at least according to Aisha) will be in the article about Sawda, but the incident in which Aisha and Hafsa (fourth wife) colluded to tease Sawda will be under Hafsa. Mariya (thirteenth wife) will not be mentioned until she gets her own article, even though it was an episode in which all the previous wives were involved.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 16:00, 28 April 2013 (PDT)
+hi 1234567, I'm resetting the indent for my convenience.
+I had given you the wrong links for your Sandboxes. I made the right links on your user page now: [[User:1234567]]. What you were working on is Sandbox 1: [[User:1234567/Sandbox 1]]
+I feel you enjoy researching and writing about these topics and that's what we want in our editors. Your recent writeup is full of facts as is usually the case and but we have two concerns again with your writing which must be addressed before you do any additional work. The first is serious and needs to be discussed.
+Wikipedia has this as a core policy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability]. I'm going to repeat the "nutshell" of their policy page:
+:'''''Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and <u>any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed</u> to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.'''''
+For example in your [[User:1234567/Sandbox 1| recent writeup]]:
+:''Muhammad told the household of Abu Bakr, without mentioning his reason, “Take good care of Aisha and watch over her for me.” The family therefore gave Aisha a “special position.” A few days later, Aisha became upset with her mother and complained to her father. Abu Bakr was angry with both of them, and Umm Ruman '''vented''' her annoyance on Aisha. Aisha hid behind the front door to '''sob''' and was in this state of distress when Muhammad, arriving for his daily visit, asked what was wrong. She '''blurted''' out everything''
+I bolded three words here (''vented, sob, blurted''). The tone of these words is dramatic/emotional and not suitable for this site. We like writing articles in a style which would be found in a research paper. I want you to understand why we want to write things in a serious/journalistic style. Even though it may read boring it looks better and is more reliable/factual.
+Here's the problem. A visitor comes on this site and reads ''"Abu Bakr was angry and Umm Ruman vented"''. He's going to ask "Who is the author who made this claim? '''How do I know this is true?'''". Unless an editor is Bukhari himself, they cannot make such a claim. So we only ''report'' what we find in a verifiable manner. We cannot give the impression of any original research (our own conclusions). We are all anonymous people on the internet so we cannot attempt to tell the reader what we ''think'' (no one cares about that and no wants to know). We can only tell people what we know for sure. This is like you reading a news article about the history of Aisha. You would want to know the facts and the facts only.
+This is crucial to understand. Here's another example from the new writeup:
+:She was slim and light-framed[31] with a fair, rosy complexion and perhaps also red hair[32] that she wore plaited.[33] '''Time would show that she was confident, spirited, strong-willed and highly intelligent''' – she had indeed “some of the qualities of Khadijah”.
+The bolded line would not be acceptable. Its giving the impression of assumptions again. I remember I had brought something like this up before as well ([[User_talk:1234567/Archive#Questions_about_the_Wives_articles|link]]) and I'm a little sad that I'm having to address this again. You have access to great sources and you have a strong interest in these topics and I want your work to be produced in the best way possible. If people see statements like these, this will severely negate all the positives (the references and facts). Mixing facts with opinions also makes it hard for the reader to distinguish between the two. (1) What actually happened. (2) What the author thinks may have happened. Even if what you wrote may be true, we cannot give the impression that the author is making the claim.
+Leave out anything that you cannot directly attribute to a source. Make everything easily verifiable. That does mean leaving out speculations. If you have any speculation that is about something very important (Khadija living 15 more years), you can say it like "One may conclude that ...". Here its clear that this is an opinion of the author.
+The second concern is making multiple references. Please do not combine references into a single reference. It makes it harder for anyone to verify the information.
+To make things easy for you for both these issues, you can just mention the most important parts of a story so you'll have to use less references and do less work. I know you want people to know as much as possible so thats your choice, but in any case we need all opinions to left out, everything to be easily verifiable and no combined references should be used. If there is something that you think might be challenged by Muslims, it is also good to write the relevant part of that quote in the references with italics/quotation marks or provide the entire quote (whatever you think is appropriate). For example <ref>''"... Abu Bakar was very upset with Muhammad ..."'' (Bukhari 123:123)</ref>
+One problem is that we don't have time to continuously review and fix the content, so this must change going forward and we need you to understand our approach so any additional work is done according to the guidelines. If these things are not fixed/changed at this time when the material is being compiled, it will be almost impossible to fix it later when there's limited access to the sources.
+I think you will understand if you imagine that you are writing a research paper with a serious tone where everything must be referenced. This is very simple to do: As you go along, reference everything and don't create any opinions or give the impression that an opinion has been created. This is all you need to do.
+As for whether you should do the controversial articles first or go in chrono-order, that's up to you how you want to do that. If we had a preference, of course we would like the controversial content first.
+Sahabah may have additional thoughts. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (PDT)