User talk:1234567

Links

User talk:1234567/Archive

Sandbox

Simon Ockley again

My Arab friends have given me some help about Simon Ockley's translation of the paedophilia text. Simon Ockley was translating this text. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xLJEAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en. You can scroll forward to page 23, where you will recognise the words Mohamet, Abu Bakr, Aisha. There is no serious doubt that Ockley has made an accurate translation of Maracci's Latin. You will see that the Arab scholar was called Abdulrahman al-Hamdani. My friends say that the title of his book is Al-Shabayat. They cannot read Latin and I did not tell them what it was about. I just asked them about the sentence of Arabic. They said it means: "He reached out his blessed arm and grabbed her by the clothes." They were very surprised by this odd sentence. I had to explain to them that it was probably a quote from the book, and the story was about Muhammad and Aisha. So I think we can fairly say that Maracci did have access to a real book and that he made a fair translation of the story. Now we must try to find out who the scholar was and when he lived. Perhaps then we can establish the reliability of his narrative. But there is something about it that rings horribly true. I don't think a Muslim hagiographer would have invented this story.1234567 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Interesting! Thanks for keeping us posted. --Sahabah (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Aisha

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: 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 any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

For example in your 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 (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> Even in essays these two issues must not be present.

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 actually very simple to do: As you go along, only report what you see (in a chronological order when possible), 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. Let me know if you see any problems or difficulties with what I'm suggesting. --Axius (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (PDT)

I don't have much to add except maybe clarify a few of Axius' points, or at least what I think he meant (Axius will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong).

About Axius' point concerning assumptions; in essence we're an encyclopedic counter-apologetics site, so things like this are great (minus the use of the word "absurd"):

However, this is not:

And, yes, the use of dramatic/emotional language detracts a lot of the page's impact and makes it harder for an anonymous reader to take seriously. So basically, it shouldn't read like a novel. I know 1234567 is concerned about holding peoples interest, but the 'dry' or 'boring' articles really are what readers are looking for and is certainly what we want. Of course, when I say 'dry' or 'boring', I mean a to-the-point article written in a scholarly, professional tone. I know we must seem like crazy control freaks, and I apologize for that. But people will use any little excuse they can find to dismiss work critical of Islam. Your articles really are great and it would be a shame for them to be dismissed over such easily rectified points. --Sahabah (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2013 (PDT)

Okay, what you need to understand is that the article is currently in a very rough state, based on old work that was intended for a more narrative style. I have had to break off my research to earn money for a few days. So I have a skeleton article (information in roughly the right order) but also a lot of references not properly tied to the article and a lot of statements not properly tied to references. You can see this from the number of empty reference boxes. Many of the statements reflect the sort of information that, based on my preliminary reading of the sources, I expect to find, but there just hasn't been time for a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of how I know what I know. Isn't that what sandboxes are for?

And, yes, I do sometimes find that when I do the breakdown, I have drawn an unwarranted conclusion. It turns out to be based on something I read in a secondary source that wasn't properly linked to a real primary source; or when events are laid out in strict chronological order, it turns out that there is a confusion (mine or someone else's) of cause and effect; or the same minor character has been running through several narratives and reveals himself as a much more major player than anyone realised.

In the case of the story of Muhammad interfering with Abu Bakr's family, what will be needed will be to tie it more closely to the language of the original hadith, which (in my translation) is: "He found Aisha hiding behind the door of the house of Abu Bakr, weeping with great distress. He questioned her and she complained about her mother and said that she was after her." So perhaps she didn't "blurt" but only "told" her complaint; but it was definitely not in neutral tone. The annoying lack of specific detail (what actually happened in this situation?) is a feature of the original, which may be why this story is often omitted from the standard biographies of Aisha. I think it is interesting, however, to examine her relationship with the parents who soon afterwards handed her over to the paedophile.

Regarding the description of Aisha as intelligent, high-spirited, etc., this is rather similar to the description of Khadija as "loyal and sympathetic", which I wrote in the middle of my Khadija article. The evidence for these qualities not apparent at this point in the narrative, but it becomes obvious by the end of the story. Now you might want all such descriptors removed or left to a final conclusion, which is fine if that is your policy. But that does leave the reader wondering: What did Jibreel/Muhammad/Khawla mean by claiming that Aisha had "some of the qualities of Khadija"? Intelligence is the one obvious thing that the two had in common, but there were no IQ tests in those days. This seems to be the wrong point to reference every single hadith suggesting that Aisha had a high IQ.1234567 (talk)

Yes, of course that is what sandboxes are for. I'm sure Axius is aware that its content may not reflect what the finished page will look like, but was hoping his early intervention would help you avoid any unnecessary extra work later on. If one editor notices the work of another editor and thinks they're going in the wrong direction, it's only natural to point it out. If their input is not necessary because you already plan on doing what they suggested, then there is no harm.

About that family incident. I agree it's interesting. But the point about dramatic/emotional language would still stand. For example, replacing the word "weeping" with "crying" (if the source is quoted in the reference, readers will easily be able to read the original wording by hovering their cursor over the ref number). Or you could simply quote the source by saying, "she was "weeping with great distress"". I understand that Aisha telling Muhammad was not done in a neutral tone, and that your description of events should be accurate. But I think this should be done using the least dramatic language possible, and where there is such language used, it should be within quotation marks and never from the actual author/article.

Regarding the description of Aisha. I haven't read the entire article, but just considering that section on its own, I don't think it's necessary to even have that line there. One way that could have been handled without losing any information is by adding a footnote, e.g., "He said the angel Jibril had appeared to him in a dream, holding a veiled child and saying, “Messenger of Allah, this one will remove some of your sorrow. This one has some of the qualities of Khadijah.”<ref>Note that Islamic sources generally convey that Khadijah was a confident, enthusiastic, determined and intelligent women.</ref> Then he lifted the veil, revealing that the child was Aisha." --Sahabah (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (PDT)

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 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 (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. --Axius (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

hi 1234567, welcome back. --Axius (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (PDT)

Article comments

hi 1234567, I have some comments for User:1234567/Sandbox 1 and User:1234567/Sandbox 2. I'm assuming they're more or less complete. I didnt want you to be doing any more work on them but I thought I should ask first to see if you're done. --Axius (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2013 (PDT)

Sandbox 1 I still want to check some references.

Sandbox 2 is more or less complete but doesn't stand on its own.

There are so many references that the software will not support them as a single article.1234567 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2013 (PDT)

Ok. Let me know when you're done and I'll compile my thoughts about the things I had noticed. Its ok to have them divided right now. --Axius (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2013 (PDT)

The biggest problem is still Ockley/Maracci. We're going to look really, really stupid if we include it and it turns out to be some sixteenth-century fantasy. On the other hand, if it's genuine, I'd still like to include it in the article. I can't find any trace online of an Abdulrahman al-Hamdani or an Abdulrahman ibn Hamdan who wrote the appropriate book. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist; it more likely means that he's out of favour with modern scholars and was never cited by anyone who wrote in English.

My Arab friends are searching for him in Arabic. They have come on board with helping me and are saying that it's "really important to tell everyone the truth about Muhammad." But I don't want to harass them. They have busy lives and they don't have a background in history; I have to give them clues about where to look.

Meanwhile, a few other things need tidying, but I can afford to cut them out if I can't find the information easily.

Ok. I think if you cant find the sources right now easily, it will be fine if you can leave those things out and put them in a "to do" list to deal with when you do find the sources. I'll wait for you to be done and then talk about the things that are of concern (in Sandbox 1 and 2) --Axius (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2013 (PDT)