William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) →OR?: don't shout |
William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) →Hadiths assessment: errr |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:: You are the one who wants to add it. How about you point to an example of where it is used, usefully? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC) |
:: You are the one who wants to add it. How about you point to an example of where it is used, usefully? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::As I expected, no case basically. This issue is precisely an objection to the guideline but mispresented as an "applicability" issue. You are making the objection on every addition, therefore I ask again about your "ideal" case of including the tag. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC) |
:::As I expected, no case basically. This issue is precisely an objection to the guideline but mispresented as an "applicability" issue. You are making the objection on every addition, therefore I ask again about your "ideal" case of including the tag. [[User:Al-Andalusi|Al-Andalusi]] ([[User talk:Al-Andalusi|talk]]) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: You are right: I can see no examples where this tag would be useful. Nor is it at all clear to me what such an example would look like. That is entirely consistent with my removing it. You're the one who wants to use it, so please provide an example where it has been useful [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 09:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The tag should be deleted. Wikipedia is about providing reliable sources to prove a quote. If an article quotes Muhammad, but does not say the primary source of the quote, then a template asking to verify the source of the quote should be added. not a template asking to verify the authenticty, which there is always going to be differing views on. Because of the Shia vs Sunni thing. |
The tag should be deleted. Wikipedia is about providing reliable sources to prove a quote. If an article quotes Muhammad, but does not say the primary source of the quote, then a template asking to verify the source of the quote should be added. not a template asking to verify the authenticty, which there is always going to be differing views on. Because of the Shia vs Sunni thing. |
Revision as of 09:13, 18 July 2011
Hadiths assessment
The article cites a number of reports from Abu Dawud, Al-Tabari, and Ibn Sa'd. As is known, these narrations are not necessarily authentic, and per WP:MOSISLAM#Hadith, needs to be verified by including the views of hadith scholars. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I told you before, everyone has different view on whats authentic and whats not. if you can find a source discussing the authenticity, add it. otherwise dont add the tag. What if there is no reliable source discussing the authenticity? And that template is not wiki policy, anyone can edit it. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- As is known - not quite sure what you mean by that. Is this just a general statement about all hadith, or something more particular? needs to be verified by including the views of hadith scholars - again, not clear what you mean. Are you suggesting that any use of hadith anywhere in wiki needs a (long?) explanation of who believes them and who no, or just some? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Let's get to the bottom of this. Clearly, you are opposed to the WP:MOSISLAM's guideline itself, and NOT to its particular application here or elsewhere. Therefore, stop wasting my and other editor's time by turning every discussion on the applicability of the tag into a discussion on the guideline itself and instead take your "arguments" to WP:MOSISLAM where much more knowledgeable and consistent people would offer their views. In the meantime, I and the other editors will follow MOSIslam, not your opinions. Ok ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong again (care to go off to Talk:Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan) and apologise for your poor tone and errors there?). I'm fine with the guideline - as it says, *consider* adding the template - it doesn't say spam the template across a whole pile of pages indiscriminately. As before - I don't care for your incivility, above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, you talk about incivility, yet call my edits "spamming" ? besides, this tag was added individually and discussed on the talk page. So no. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong again (care to go off to Talk:Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan) and apologise for your poor tone and errors there?). I'm fine with the guideline - as it says, *consider* adding the template - it doesn't say spam the template across a whole pile of pages indiscriminately. As before - I don't care for your incivility, above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Let's get to the bottom of this. Clearly, you are opposed to the WP:MOSISLAM's guideline itself, and NOT to its particular application here or elsewhere. Therefore, stop wasting my and other editor's time by turning every discussion on the applicability of the tag into a discussion on the guideline itself and instead take your "arguments" to WP:MOSISLAM where much more knowledgeable and consistent people would offer their views. In the meantime, I and the other editors will follow MOSIslam, not your opinions. Ok ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
MOISLAM guiline needs to be changed. it too strong, no one is going to explain the authenticity of all quotes in all wiki articles which quote them. MOISLAM is not wikipolicy either--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately, it hasn't changed and I will oppose any change to it. This means, all editors are to follow the current guideline. I myself will ignore any objection talk on the article's talk pages that opposes the guideline (which so far has been misleadingly presented as an applicability problem, not a guideline problem).Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is a guideline, not policy: Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. There is no absolute requirement on editors to follow it. That said, you haven't followed it either, because you skipped the consideration that it asks for William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did follow the consideration (as seen by my creation of this talk page and this section), but I assumed that I was talking with knowledgeable editors. That is not the case here, as Misonceptions2 didn't know what hadith meant, and William wasn't even aware of this discussion to begin with (yet on the incidents board, he continues to claim that he was part of the discussion). Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is a guideline, not policy: Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. There is no absolute requirement on editors to follow it. That said, you haven't followed it either, because you skipped the consideration that it asks for William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@Al-a, you know full well that the statements in MOISLAM is just so wrong, tell me. Do you plan on adding that tag to all 1000+ articles which quote Muhammad. Or only on articles you have content disagreement with? Either way i disagree with its addition and the template should be deleted. I consider nominating it for deletion. read Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Like William said, the MOISLAM article is a guideline , not policy, and has exceptions (see the template at the top of MOISLAM page)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, you admitted that you're opposed to it, and I'm really not interested at all in knowing more about your objections. But William above states that he's fine with the guideline. Let's ask William then: describe one case where you would agree on the inclusion of the tag ? What consideration will convince you that yes, the article needs the tag ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are the one who wants to add it. How about you point to an example of where it is used, usefully? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I expected, no case basically. This issue is precisely an objection to the guideline but mispresented as an "applicability" issue. You are making the objection on every addition, therefore I ask again about your "ideal" case of including the tag. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are right: I can see no examples where this tag would be useful. Nor is it at all clear to me what such an example would look like. That is entirely consistent with my removing it. You're the one who wants to use it, so please provide an example where it has been useful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I expected, no case basically. This issue is precisely an objection to the guideline but mispresented as an "applicability" issue. You are making the objection on every addition, therefore I ask again about your "ideal" case of including the tag. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are the one who wants to add it. How about you point to an example of where it is used, usefully? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The tag should be deleted. Wikipedia is about providing reliable sources to prove a quote. If an article quotes Muhammad, but does not say the primary source of the quote, then a template asking to verify the source of the quote should be added. not a template asking to verify the authenticty, which there is always going to be differing views on. Because of the Shia vs Sunni thing.
its impossible to "verify" the authenticity for this reason, as there is no quote which i can say is "authentic" or "not authentic", i can at least say, so and so considers it authentic, so and so considers it fake, but whats the point, you do know that for all articles which use Mubarakpuri, i can say "Mubarakpuri considers this quote from Tabari authentic, as he used it to make his biography", as he considered everything in his book authentic. I am considering nominating the template for deletion--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Question for al-A
@Al-A, doesnt what i have to say here show that "proving the authenticity" is a bad idea. You did not add that tag to articles which only quote Sahih Bukhari, as you consider it authentic (no need to verify authenticity of sahih bukhari, right?). But shia's dont consider Sahih Bukhari authentic (fact). Seems you think "authenticity" is a 1 way thing. If Sunni's consider it authentic, doesnt mean its authentic (just means Sunnis consider it authentic). Should i say in every article which quote Sahih Bukhari, that Sunni's consider it authentic, Shia's dont? Sure we can say how authentic scholars consider a famous or controversial quote (for the sake of peace on Wikipedia). i am not stopping you from doing that. if you can find a source discussing the authenticity of a quote, add it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Proving the authenticity of a report or a claim is a bad idea ?! What an ignorant thing to say ! Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@Al-A you cant prove something like this is authentic. You can say, so and so considers it authentic or fake. i dont want to argue. If you can find a rs discussing authenticity, add it. or else dont add the tag. You should NEVER expect anyone to find a source discussing the authenticity of a non famous quote. A pathetic demand--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
OR?
This thing might contain OR. I don't know. But the edit comment that tagged it appeared to conflate OR with use of primary sources. That is wrong, so I've removed the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- "According to Al-Tabari", "Al-Tabari said", "Al-Tabari stated"...etc are all interpretive claims that essentially imply that Al-Tabari believed and asserted what followed the attribution, when this is not necessarily the case, since Al-Tabari (and the other listed scholars) merely compiled what they heard/read and attributed the event to the narrator. The primary source itself makes no indication that he believed the narrator as the article implies, and this is WP:OR. It's very much like describing a crime by saying "according to the court" when you're actually referencing the defendant's claims that appear in an official court document (which clearly attributes the claim to the individual); the court might eventually accept or reject his testimony, but it is misleading to say "according to the court" when the document makes no indication whatsoever.
- To resolve the issues, a secondary source should be used and the statements reworded to say something along the lines of: "according a report narrated on the authority of [name of narrator] in Al-Tabari's work" or "according to a narration in Al-Tabari's...", in the same way it's more accurate to say: "according to the court, the defendant claimed that [...]". Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're torturing words too much. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, yes. But adding text, and accurately attributing it to the source, is not OR. In this case, I find examples like "According to the Abu Dawud Hadith collection..." and "According to Ibn Sa'd and Tabari, based on an account through Ibn Ishaq, who was told by a man from the Aslam tribe...", which are all clearly acceptable. Somehow, you missed those. I don't find "Al-Tabari said" which you quote - could you point to where that text occurs? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
@Al-A, no one wants to argue with you. If you can find a rs source discussing the authenticity of a quote, add it. Dont expect somone to go find the authenticity of a non famous quote for you.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@William, i am a little confused, can you tell me in simple words what exactly OR is?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't a good place to start; don't try to interpret Al-A, above. But do try reading WP:OR William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)