User talk:1234567: Difference between revisions

User talk:1234567 (view source)

Revision as of 16:59, 30 April 2013

2 bytes added , 30 April 2013

→‎Aisha

Axius

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

19,746

edits

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 ::::hi 1234567, right, we didnt know the writeup was based on content written earlier. No problem, we'll wait for you to be done.
 ::::Sahabah is right about the intelligence issue. I'll assume temporarily I'm a critical reader. I would ask questions like: ''"What is the evidence for her being confident, strong-willed and intelligent? How do these qualities compare to those found in other women of that time? Was she exceptional in any way? Did anyone attest to these qualities explicitly? Were there any additional qualities? Maybe it was something else that was being referred to, such as praying habits, seeking the approval of Muhammad and so on"''. etc. You'll realize you're better off leaving these conclusions out.
-::::You want to write a complete story but I'm saying having an accurate and reliable story is of primary importance while a secondary issue is of the story being/appearing complete. Islamic sources mention only bits and pieces and if we report just those, we've done our job. Its not even necessary to write in conclusions/deductions and fill in any gaps. The facts are powerful enough on their own. So we're looking for statements like these: ''Aisha could in fact read[25] but she never learned to write.[26]''. They are directly referenced facts and have their own references (not combined). Here's a useful policy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia:No original research]), another of their core policies and I'll only mention the 'nutshell':
+::::You want to write a complete story but I'm saying having an accurate and reliable story is of primary importance while a secondary issue is of the story being/appearing incomplete. Islamic sources mention only bits and pieces and if we report just those, we've done our job. Its not even necessary to write in conclusions/deductions and fill in any gaps. The facts are powerful enough on their own. So we're looking for statements like these: ''Aisha could in fact read[25] but she never learned to write.[26]''. They are directly referenced facts and have their own references (not combined). Here's a useful policy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia:No original research]), another of their core policies and I'll only mention the 'nutshell':
 :::::''Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles '''may not contain any new analysis or synthesis''' of published material that serves to advance a position '''not clearly advanced by the sources themselves'''.''
 ::::He's also right about the 'weeping' issue. For example when newspapers report what people are saying, they use exact quotes. Usage of the actual words is better than using your own words even if you think the new words describe it better.
 ::::I feel I've not done a complete job of explaining but hopefully this should help. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 09:39, 30 April 2013 (PDT)