User talk:1234567: Difference between revisions

User talk:1234567 (view source)

Revision as of 07:47, 14 July 2013

3,141 bytes added , 14 July 2013

→‎Article comments

Sahab

Bureaucrats, Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Suppressors, Administrators

48,466

edits

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 ::And I have stumbled across a few new hadiths that I can use to correct my previous articles. Amazing what you find when you're looking for something else.
 ::I don't have a specific suggestion for improving the site overall, but whenever I find anything that might interest you, I'll post it on the appropriate Talk page.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (PDT)
+:::'''"The truth is, we are dealing with translated material. I know quite a lot about translation (because I speak three languages, though not Arabic) and I find that for most purposes, a dynamic equivalent is better than a literal translation."'''
+:::Surely you're aware that paraphrasing sources and presenting them as direct quotes from translations (by the use of inverted commas) is wrong? It's simply not the done thing.
+:::Sites critical of Islam mainly have 3 accusations hurled at them: 1) they're biased. 2) they're run by bigoted right-wingers with an axe to grind. 3) their criticism is built on fabricated sources and taking things out of context.
+:::The first two don't bother us because they're ad hominem (plus, we don't do politics, so the second incorrect accusation isn't even worth entertaining). However, the third accusation is something we take very seriously. We've managed to avoid such accusations by being very stringent with what we allow onto the site.
+:::Speak to anyone with experience in debating Muslims or writing articles critiquing Islam and they will tell you that paraphrasing sources will lead to the accusation of fabricating sources. And to be honest, there wouldn't be a defense for it. More worryingly, you seem to go further than simply paraphrasing the text.
+:::You appear to be merging several hadith into one, and the conclusions you reach from your reinterpretation of sources are at times not supported by the sources. You did agree to quote the relevant text for all sources in reference tags, but have failed to do so. We do this to make it easier for readers to check sources onsite (rather than have to go offsite via an external link or have to buy hard copies of sources). This would also help us and future editors to verify the accuracy of articles.
+:::I really think it is very important for an editor who wants to improve, to fully understand what the problems are. If you would like me to go more in-depth with the problems I see, please say so, and I will. Anyhow, I'm glad you are willing to make corrections.
+:::'''"Literal translation, especially of idioms, often obscures the real meaning. For example, the "woman of red gums" is a "toothless woman", i.e., an old one. We just don't express the idea that way in natural English."'''
+:::True. But this could have been explained without paraphrasing quotations.
+:::'''"To be scrupulously honest, we should in fact name the translation as well as the source, and this information is not always available."'''
+:::There may be exceptions, but we usually do. All of of our Qur'an and several of the major hadith collections have this information available. If you click on the left side of each reference, it will take you to it: {{Quran|4|1}} or {{Bukhari|4|55|548}}. We also have the same for Tabari (you have to click on the right side for that): {{Tabari|1|p. 273}}. The important thing is that they're from ''published'' translations. Not ones that we made up. They have to be translations that Muslims would use without a problem. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (PDT)