Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, Editors, oversight, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
19,746
edits
User talk:1234567: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
:On the other hand, your work could be considered "original research". Tracking down the exact reference for stated facts seems difficult and you seem to infer things and make a lot of assumptions based on your own reading of the text (where you say things like, "most probably, or "likely", etc.). Since we have no idea of what led you to those conclusions, there is no way our editors can defend it. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 17:01, 2 February 2013 (PST) | :On the other hand, your work could be considered "original research". Tracking down the exact reference for stated facts seems difficult and you seem to infer things and make a lot of assumptions based on your own reading of the text (where you say things like, "most probably, or "likely", etc.). Since we have no idea of what led you to those conclusions, there is no way our editors can defend it. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 17:01, 2 February 2013 (PST) | ||
hi '''1234567''', I out-dented your quotes and am reproducing them for replies: | |||
: ''I didn't realise there was more than one way of numbering the pages. How curious! I just went by the page-numbers in my version. But if there is an alternative numbering system, this is going to cause endless confusion. Maybe you could explain it to me? '' | |||
We go by page numbers too. Here's my page 155 [http://postimage.org/image/igs42i0vj/full/]. Is this what you have too on your side? I dont see anything about Khadija on both pg 154 and 155. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong book or location. Here's the title page of the book [http://postimage.org/image/xzy3rg55n/]. The line that you wrote is here: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-42] (ref 38 in that section) | |||
:''So the assumption that Muhammad married Khadija only for the money just doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts.'' | |||
Say he had a choice to marry two women who wanted to marry him. One was K, and the other was also K, but she was as poor as Fakhita. A man who goes after war booty and organizes caravan raids to rob non-Muslims definitely would go after the rich woman. Why did he really marry Khadija? We don't know. We only know the facts: She was from a rich family, he was from a poor one and when he found out K is single, maybe his thinking was ''"I couldnt get with Fakhita. I'll get a job with Khadija. If I get real lucky, she might just marry me".'' | |||
So we dont know these things. For our site, we keep these kinds of opinions out because these conclusions can be questioned by anyone. Just stating the facts is enough and the reader should be left to decide the rest for themselves. | |||
:''At the very least, there was the additional motive that he simply wanted to marry, which is probably a polite way of saying that he was looking for a sexual partner.'' | |||
Of course. No one says 100% of the motive was money. It could be: 60% money and improving his future prospects and influence, 30% sexual partnership and 10% companionship and so on. Again if another K (who had no money) also proposed to him, he would married the rich K. Even today anyone would do that and would pay importance to money, if other factors were kept equal. | |||
:''Khadija inherited her business from her father" is one of those overworked statements that we all think we know about Islam but in fact is highly doubtful. How could she have inherited the business at a date when her father was still alive?'' | |||
Maybe the father said ''"I'm tired, you can take the reigns, you're pretty good at it."''. We dont know what happened. The important thing is: She was a successful business woman and very rich. | |||
:''Unless the source material clearly states otherwise, we should consider the possibilities that the business was inherited from her first husband (who came from a clan of prosperous merchants), was set up by her second husband (who was an immigrant but nevertheless prince among his own people) or was the result of Khadija's own personal efforts.'' | |||
Yes those are possibilities. I dont know what the Wikipedia source exactly says but we would go by whatever the source says. Again the important issue is that she was rich. Whether she got rich through a lottery, father or husband, those are interesting details but secondary when studying why Muhammad married her. Muhammad wouldn't really care exactly how she inherited the wealth. | |||
:''There are in fact a couple of hadiths that indicate a warm relationship between Muhammad and his stepsons. '''Would it be more suitable if I simply quoted them and left the conclusion alone'''?'' | |||
:''Having said that, I actually believe (though it would be difficult to prove this objectively) that the "good relationship" between them was superficial. The stepchildren (including Sawda's son) were never prominent in the Muslim community; we just don't find their names on the lists. As Muhammad was often quite nepotistic, this suggests he was not close to his stepchidren after they grew up.'' | |||
Yes, most definitely. We love quotes, at least I do. In my opinion, any thing that says "this happened" needs a direct reference. So we cannot say "he must have been a good stepfather", unless there's a direct source for it. | |||
:''The words you have bolded are directly from Aisha!'' | |||
Then it should be made clear, because to me the words were stated by you. | |||
:''"it's simply unclear referencing"'' | |||
It doesn't need to be said that no reference should be unclear. The reader wants to know whether something was an invention by the author, or by the primary source (Aisha). In fact it would have been a lot more interesting and credible, if the reader was told that Aisha described Juwayriya like that. | |||
:''I agree that "fairy" (Ghadanfar's translation) is not a particularly good rendering of jinnya, but I'm stumped as to what other English word to substitute. (Elf? Siren? Angel? Veela?)'' | |||
The more accurate and credible way to do this would be to say something like this: ''Aisha once described Juwayriya as 'jinnya', a word which some arabic dictionaries describe as 'beautiful, fairy like, elf and angel.''' | |||
Would you agree that its much better to tell the reader that Aisha described her as jinnya and not you? This isnt just about this certain issue but about others as well. The reader doesnt care for your personal opinions and conclusions. They want to know the facts. When you read a news article, you want to know ''what really happened''. You dont care about the writer's own inventions and original research. Stories that only contain 'facts' are much more valued by the reader than those containing original research. You as a writer may feel good about seeing the article as 'your own' but the reality again is: the reader just wants to know the facts. | |||
:Anyway, I'll go through the whole and make it clear that when I use expressions like that, it's some person's subjective opinion. | |||
There should ideally be no subjective opinion in any of the text unless they are opinions of important people in the story (Muhammad's wife, Muhammad, his enemies and so on). | |||
:Again, I can alter the referencing. But many of the stories are clunky to reference no matter how they are approached. The six references tell the same story almost identically. I could certainly add a reference after each sentence, but each footnote would include four or five of the six total references. Or I could include only one of the references, but I would then have to sacrifice any information not specifically included in that reference. | |||
Just keep this in mind: If you think something may be and can be questioned by someone, it definitely needs very clear references that can be cross-checked. Wikipedia's principle is similar: "if it can be questioned, it needs a source". | |||
Thanks for your other information. You're definitely more well-read than I am and you're passionate about this subject and you've decided to come to this site. All these things are hard to find in an editor. If you did decide to take out all opinions and anything that is not directly stated in the references and keep it it part of the main content, that would be awesome and ideal for our site and it would make me really happy. But if you want to convert the whole thing to an essay as Sahabah mentioned, that's up to you. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (PST) | |||
== Considered submitting an essay/op-ed? == | == Considered submitting an essay/op-ed? == | ||
| Line 219: | Line 268: | ||
::Good luck with you e-book! If you need any help with it, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'd probably not be very useful, but if you need someone to check for typos or maybe just give you their honest opinion, know that I'm more than happy to give you a hand. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 21:24, 4 February 2013 (PST) | ::Good luck with you e-book! If you need any help with it, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'd probably not be very useful, but if you need someone to check for typos or maybe just give you their honest opinion, know that I'm more than happy to give you a hand. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 21:24, 4 February 2013 (PST) | ||
:::Here's my opinion. Sahabah knows that I prefer our main content to essays because essays have personal opinions. Thats why we have this linked disclaimer [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Essays/Op-Eds_Disclaimer] at the top of every essay says ''"Views contained in essays/op-eds are not necessarily endorsed by WikiIslam. ... Thus, they may contain original research/theories at odds with the rest of our content. "''. Because of the fact that a piece of content only contains facts, WikiIslam stands behind everything that is in that content and essays don't get that support (and respect and success in my opinion). I actually dislike essays for that reason but I do see that they attract readership too. For example this certain essay series [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Factual_Persuasion_-_Changing_the_Minds_of_Islams_Supporters] imported by Sahabah was picked up by some quickly and linked online on forum(s). Sometimes a reader may relate to something in an essay. But again to me an essay has secondary importance. In the Wives case, the issue is all about history and when history is written about, the reader again wants to know ''what really happened''. For this Factual persuasion series, its pretty clear its an essay series. | |||
:::So I would really like if the work was improved upon so it can be part of the main content rather than being an essay. The first step in that would be to take out original research (conclusions, assumptions) which is not present in the source. Essays are attributed to a single author. We really want something where everything is fact based and there are no opinions and everything in it is what the site endorses. No one takes (unsourced) opinions seriously unless they are by Ibn Warraq or Tabari and so on. By that I mean, statements like that cant be quoted in a debate because they'll be questioned: Who wrote it? How do they know that? How can we trust this author and believe what they've written? When a piece in a newspaper says "In 1937, 110 people were killed in a landslide", that is a fact and no one doubts that and its more likely to be quoted. If someone says "There were many landslides in that area so many people must have been killed", that is weak as compared to the first. To clarify, Sahabah also likes fact-only articles just like I do too but he also likes essays. | |||
:::But again -- if you guys want to work on keeping it as an essay that's up to you. If you decide to work on it as being part of the main content, of course essays can be written later too. I really wish I had time to work on this myself and if I did, I would have made it to be part of the main content and not be an essay. There's some really great stuff in what 1234567 has done, many interesting facts and details. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (PST) | |||