Thereisnohope
|
Original Research
editWikipedia has a no original research policy which means that everything in Wikipedia must be sourced from a verifiable reliable source. Reliable sources include non-self-published material that includes non-polemic books and journals. Personal websites and self-published books are never considered reliable sources. Furthermore, synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Not abiding by these Wikipedia policies can get you blocked. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply to email regarding edit war on Bahá'u'lláh's family
editEmail sent to me shown below for transparency purposes.
Hi Foxy Loxy, Firstly, thank you for your dedication & voluntary work for Wiki, I DO appreciate it! I was directed here from the 'welcome page' for new members. I have some problems: 1) I made some corrections on 23 June to the Baha'i page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h%27s_family#Plurality_of_wives about the 3 wives of Baha'u'llah. The changes were reversed in just half an hour by Jeff3000 Since then I've repeated the corrections, but Jeff300 keeps on going in (straight away!) & changing them to the previous lies; that Baha'u'llah was following the Muslim religion - whereas he was infact a Babi. I don't want these editing wars to go on. There are 2 parts to the Wiki article: 1) Facts, &, 2) Baha'i Apologia. OK, for their apologia they can lie all they want. But for the 'facts', we have to stick to the facts of history; namely, Baha'u'llah was a leading Babi & had been for some years, & infact that is why he was banished. He had not been a Muslim since about 1846. I have now sent an email to Jeff3000. But I am not hopeful that he will concede the facts, because I suspect that he is a front for a Baha'i editing team which makes sure the references to their religion toe the party line. If the dispute continues how do we resolve it? How do I contact the Wiki editorial team? Regards, Thereisnohope
Hello Thereisnohope, thankyou for contacting me. I would be very interested to know on what welcome page you found my name. In regards to your inquiries about your changes to Bahá'u'lláh's family, I think I should help to explain some of Wikipedia's policies to you. Wikipedia works on a system of citation; when we write a fact that could be possibly challenged, we link to a reliable source as proof that what we wrote is the truth. Currently, neither yourself or the editor you are in conflict with have provided reliable sources to prove your side of the story, this means, as a third-party, I cannot possibly see which side of the story is the truth. To warrant the inclusion of your fact, you should find a reliable source online and cite it, within the article to prove your fact is the correct one. To cite a source in an article, please see this article. If your problem persists after attempts to communicate with the editor you are in conflict with fails and the user continues to revert your changes, please contact me again and I will endeavor to explain how to contact people who will prevent this from continuing. Some other points you may find useful are shown below:
- Wikipedia does not allow original research, meaning that if you can't prove it with a reliable source, it should not be in the article.
- If you revert (that is, change the page text back to a previous version) more than three times in one day, you are violating the 3 revert rule, which could lead to a block.
If you wish to reply to this message, please do so below. Thankyou and happy editing! Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
No personal attacks please
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jeff3000 was noting WP policies to you. Calling it sophistry is out-of-bounds. MARussellPESE (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Sophistry" is a pejorative. Calling someone's arguments such is inappropriate here. Now, either:
- You didn't know that, and needed to be informed that its use is a PA, or,
- You did, and needed to be warned against making PAs.
- Jeff3000 has been around for a very long time and knows his stuff. You're much better off trying to get his point than dismissing it. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Wives
editHello,
The heading of "Baha'i apologia" is appropriately titled. Maybe you don't understand that apologetics refers to the discipline of speaking in defense. This is a subject that people might use to question the authenticity of the religion, so a section showing how Baha'is respond to the challenge is naturally called "Apologia". Using a title of "Baha'is assert" is unprofessional, as it leaves a hanging incomplete sentence. Regardless of the section title, any information on Wikipedia is subject to the same rigorous standards of verifiability and reliability.
The simple answer to the issue of what laws he was supposedly to abide by can be referenced to the Bab himself who said that his laws were a proposal that would need to be approved by "Him whom God shall make manifest" (forgive me for not referencing this in great detail). Since the Bab was a herald that left his laws as simple recommendations waiting for approval, the only truly binding laws were those of Muhammad. For the laws binding to his followers, Baha'u'llah went through the Babi laws and picked and chose laws as he saw fit. As an aside to this, I find it interesting that Muhammad himself had about 10 wives while strictly limiting the number to 4 for everyone else.
Additionally, pre-Islamic Arabs were in a state of constant warfare and the women in society greatly outnumbered the men. One tribe would invade another, kill all the men, and take all the women as slaves/wives. They actually didn't have marriage the way we think of it. Women were property, and there were plenty of men who had hundreds of women as property. Since such detail seems irrelevant to the sentence in question, I simply changed it to "many" because of your objections. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
When adding to an AFD please do so on the Project page itself
editHi Thereisnohope, thanks for your contribution to the AFD process on the following page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyager (metal band). Just in the future comments should be made on the project page and not the associated talk page. You would probably be best to just copy the comment to the correct location. For more information on the deletion process just check out this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. Cheers, meshach (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I moved it for you so no action needed. meshach (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)