WikiIslam:Writing Style Guide: Difference between revisions

from the cited sources. Conclusions may be included but not original research; all conclusions must be taken from the relevant sources. When divergent views exist within expert opinion,

both sides should be included so far as possible and the conclusion should encourage the reader to draw their own conclusions/investigate further. It should go without saying, however to be explicit extremely generalizing,

Overall, the tone should be encyclopedic and neutral. The facts should be presented "as is" with only as much commentary is needed to elucidate any given point or give relevant background information, and the tone of the writing should be that of an encyclopedia entry describing a fact about the world we live in, not a polemic trying to convince the reader of a given point or a conversation with a friendly acquittance. Articles must adhere to the encyclopedia format and should address the topic at hand directly and neutrally; articles engaged in a particular argument and attempting to persuade the reader of one side will not be permitted. Speaking directly to the reader should be avoided if at all possible, and the use of the 1st person "we" should likewise be avoided if at all possible. Although the wiki covers some controversial topics the goal of its language should be to keep anyone reading as long as possible without causing any offense. This does NOT mean that the content of the article should "pull punches" or avoid controversial topics that might hurt the feelings of Muslims or any other group of people, however the word choice should not be such that a person from any given group immediately stop reading due to the diction alone.

Any and all analyses should not be labeled as an analysis and there should be no sections dedicated to or labeled as analysis—the whole article should be a comprehensive summary and analysis of scripture and scholarly sources. Thus, analysis will present itself throughout the article.

Acceptable analysis includes that analysis which brings together scholarly stances and/or direct scriptural references on a position and makes objective observations. The idea is to summarize the sources and allow the reader to determine how they support or conflict with one another. All positions mentioned should stay relevant to the subject of the article. Original research, that is to say conclusions reached by the writer/editor of the article and not subject peer review in an academic manner, is not allowed and should not be part of the analysis if there is no relevant scholarly source to be cited in support of it.

Unacceptable analysis Includes any analysis that contains the editor’s own judgement, conclusions, impressions, evaluations, or ethics. It is also unacceptable for editors to judge intentions or character of any author, source, or person—real or fictional.  

The Lead Text should define and explain only essential information about the subject and its impacts/contributions. The Lead Text text comes before the table of contents and does not have a section title. It is composed of one to five paragraphs and should be written simply and concisely to allow for easy digestion of information. This will also help Google create snippets for their search engine and therefore boosts the article’s visibility.

Where a source is open to interpretation or is disputed, editors should not assume a particular meaning. Interpretations can be discussed by reference to scholars. The editor should only seek to summarize and collect sources that accurately reflect the positions and dialogue concerning the article’s subject.  Articles should ''never'' end with an evaluation of the editor’s impression, as this constitutes original research. They should, however, summarize the conclusions of the scholarly works and the plain readings of the primary sources cited.