48,466
edits
User talk:1234567: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Article comments
| (11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
The only solution is go through the content and make sure quotes are exact and if they are not, they have to be carefully/neutrally worded. For example we would write "Muhammad replied" instead of "Muhammad retorted" (another issue that we had talked about before on the old talk page: [[User_talk:1234567/Archive]]). But again I feel this solution is difficult because of the amount of content and the common occurrence of the problem. Sahabah saw these problems and I agreed with him (that we cannot change quotes in any way. Again see my example of John in the beginning). Let me know what you think. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (PDT) | The only solution is go through the content and make sure quotes are exact and if they are not, they have to be carefully/neutrally worded. For example we would write "Muhammad replied" instead of "Muhammad retorted" (another issue that we had talked about before on the old talk page: [[User_talk:1234567/Archive]]). But again I feel this solution is difficult because of the amount of content and the common occurrence of the problem. Sahabah saw these problems and I agreed with him (that we cannot change quotes in any way. Again see my example of John in the beginning). Let me know what you think. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (PDT) | ||
:Let us also know if you have any feedback or suggestions for the site, if anything can be improved and so on. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:10, 3 July 2013 (PDT) | :Let us also know if you have any feedback or suggestions for the site, if anything can be improved and so on. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:10, 3 July 2013 (PDT) | ||
::Okay, if that is the main issue, that is what I will do. | |||
::Thanks for explaining site policy. The truth is, we are dealing with translated material. I know quite a lot about translation (because I speak three languages, though not Arabic) and I find that for most purposes, a dynamic equivalent is better than a literal translation. Literal translation, especially of idioms, often obscures the real meaning. For example, the "woman of red gums" is a "toothless woman", i.e., an old one. We just don't express the idea that way in natural English. An Arab would not understand our equivalent expression, "She's over the hill." In fact there are many English translations of the hadiths, not all of which are literal and hardly any of which are expressed in elegant English; but some are definitely more comprehensible than others. (This is quite aside from whether the translation attempt was an honest one, e.g., Yusuf Ali on Q4:34). To be scrupulously honest, we should in fact name the translation as well as the source, and this information is not always available. | |||
::But if you would rather keep it literal, I can copy out the exact translation word for word in each case. | |||
::"I never had a better wife than Khadijah" is definitely in one of the sources; I did not invent it, and I'm fairly sure it was not invented by a secondary historian either. I'm sorry if I missed it in the versions I quoted; I'll hunt it out. | |||
::I have cleared the decks from other commitments, so I can now spend a couple of days tidying up the citations in the Aisha article. The article about Zaynab bint Jahsh is also nearly finished. | |||
::And I have stumbled across a few new hadiths that I can use to correct my previous articles. Amazing what you find when you're looking for something else. | |||
::I don't have a specific suggestion for improving the site overall, but whenever I find anything that might interest you, I'll post it on the appropriate Talk page.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (PDT) | |||
:::'''"The truth is, we are dealing with translated material. I know quite a lot about translation (because I speak three languages, though not Arabic) and I find that for most purposes, a dynamic equivalent is better than a literal translation."''' | |||
:::Surely you're aware that paraphrasing sources and presenting them as direct quotes from translations (by the use of inverted commas) is wrong? It's simply not the done thing. | |||
:::Sites critical of Islam mainly have 3 accusations hurled at them: 1) they're biased. 2) they're run by bigoted right-wingers with an axe to grind. 3) their criticism is built on fabricated sources and taking things out of context. | |||
:::The first two don't bother us because they're ad hominem (plus, we don't do politics, so the second incorrect accusation isn't even worth entertaining). However, the third accusation is something we take very seriously. We've managed to avoid such accusations by being very stringent with what we allow onto the site. | |||
:::Speak to anyone with experience in debating Muslims or writing articles critiquing Islam and they will tell you that paraphrasing sources will lead to the accusation of fabricating sources. And to be honest, there wouldn't be a defense for it. More worryingly, you seem to go further than simply paraphrasing the text. | |||
:::You appear to be merging several hadith into one, and the conclusions you reach from your reinterpretation of sources are at times not supported by the sources. You did agree to quote the relevant text for all sources in reference tags, but have failed to do so. We do this to make it easier for readers to check sources onsite (rather than have to go offsite via an external link or have to buy hard copies of sources). This would also help us and future editors to verify the accuracy of articles. | |||
:::I really think it is very important for an editor who wants to improve, to fully understand what the problems are. If you would like me to go more in-depth with the problems I see, please say so, and I will. Anyhow, I'm glad you are willing to make corrections. | |||
:::'''"Literal translation, especially of idioms, often obscures the real meaning. For example, the "woman of red gums" is a "toothless woman", i.e., an old one. We just don't express the idea that way in natural English."''' | |||
:::True. But this could have been explained without paraphrasing quotations. To anyone who reads your quotations, then checks the actual sources, it would appear that you are exaggerating what the sources say in order to help support your claims and for added dramatic effect. That's not good. | |||
:::'''"To be scrupulously honest, we should in fact name the translation as well as the source, and this information is not always available."''' | |||
:::There may be exceptions, but we usually do. All of of our Qur'an and several of the major hadith collections have this information available. If you click on the left side of each reference, it will take you to it: {{Quran|4|1}} or {{Bukhari|4|55|548}}. We also have the same for Tabari (you have to click on the right side for that): {{Tabari|1|p. 273}}. The important thing is that they're from ''published'' translations. Not ones that we made up. They have to be translations that Muslims would use without a problem. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (PDT) | |||
::::hi 1234567, to confirm what Sahabah said: regardless of the reasons you gave (as I said I understand your challenge of using these old sources. Its a difficult task), quotes cannot be shown as quotes when they were in fact modified or paraphrased. I don't remember seeing this happen anywhere else. It could be a script for a movie or play but it wouldn't be suitable for us. I've not written much on the site but when I have, my one and only concern is that it should be something that is irrefutable. It must be linked to a good source and it must say what the source says. Of secondary importance are things like: is it readable, does it look good, does it flow well, etc. So the paraphrasing of quotes is a critical issue. No new content should be added without dealing with these existing issues. One solution that makes it easier is for you to keep the story short and only mention important details. Another is not to use quotes and only use them when you have to. Even if you don't use quotes, writing should still be "irrefutable" and accurately reflect the source. | |||
::::You haven't responded to the fact that you paraphrased the Quran and you showed a Quranic verse in quotes when that is not what it said. I have never even seen Muslims do something like that, because they will use another author's translation rather than creating their own. If we create things in quotes and give the impression that thats whats the Quran said, we are creating our own translation. Its not just for the Quran but everything else as well. | |||
::::I don't think its possible to write anything for our site without first understanding the approach we take which is accuracy and reliability first, and everything else comes later. Again, you are doing a difficult task which is to use all of these sources but the first test our pages have to pass is the "defense" stage and that has to be kept in mind constantly for a site like ours. So paraphrasing quotes creates a big problem. I know this can be dealt with. I think the first step is to make a list of possible articles that may need to fixed and then tackle them one by one. You could tell us how you would deal with this. For example you have to use the sources, you cant modify quotes, you can write things without quotes but they still have to reflect what the source says. Sources referenced must be distinct so everything can be verified easily. The more you do these things the higher the reliability is and presenting things in quotes that are not in the original source cannot be done no matter what. | |||
::::We're like a newspaper. Suppose there was this line in the newspaper: 'Jennifer said her husband was ''"buying a lot of things"'' ' | |||
::::Readers will assume that that is exactly what she said. If the newspaper had in fact paraphrased Jennifer she actually said ''"shopping at the speed of $1000 dollars an hour"'', this would be a problem and Jennifer wouldnt be happy and the readers would stop trusting the newspaper. Its a problem and to me its a very obvious problem (like I said I've never seen it happen anywhere else). I've taken a quote, modified it, and presented it in quotes -- giving the impression that whats there in the quotes is what was actually said when thats not the case. If I have to paraphrase, I have to stop using quotes and even then it has to accurately reflect what was said. | |||
::::Once again, if quotes can be modified, we cannot tell the difference between what was actually said and what was not. I know these are big problems because its not just a few paragraphs. Its a lot of content. We're already busy in a lot of things and I dont know if we have enough time to help you extensively with this so its all up to you basically. But again, we cannot have content on the site where quotes have been paraphrased and presented as quotes when they are not quotes. I did some searching ([https://www.google.com/search?q=paraphrasing+quotation+marks&spell=1&sa=X&ei=X7niUdmqCfiq4AOxi4GgAg&ved=0CCsQvwUoAA&biw=1920&bih=852 Google]). Here's a good link about the use of quotation marks: [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/]. It says "Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. In this case, ''it is not necessary to use quotation marks''." (section heading: Indirect Quotations). It also says "Many writers struggle with when to use direct quotations versus indirect quotations. Use the following tips to guide you in your choice." | |||
::::Here's someone responding to a similar issue on Yahoo answers ([http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100325064701AA8iaJ7 Do you use quotations when paraphrasing?]): | |||
:::::''you don't use quotation marks. in text citations will do (an example of which is parenthetical citation). just make sure to give credit to your sources. '''you only use quotation marks when using DIRECT quotations, meaning everything is copied from the source in verbatim'''.'' | |||
::::Additional links: [http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase2.html How to paraphrase a source]. This has a section on ''"Paraphrasing difficult texts"''. This following source [http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu/reading-writing/on-line/qpp.html] has a section on "Too many direct quotations". Here's another [http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/anderson/quotation.htm] which says: ''"When you paraphrase, you must entirely reword material taken from a source, '''without using quotation marks'''".'' Another Q/A: [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_paraphrase_have_quotation_marks Does a paraphrase have quotation marks?]. | |||
::::So the steps here are to first settle this paraphrasing quotes issue and you can look other sources to see what they say and how to deal with the problem of writing content while using multiple sources, how and when to paraphrase and when/how to use direct quotations and so on. You will see they're saying the same thing we have been saying: You cant paraphrase things and present them in quotation marks. | |||
:::: It may also be helpful to visit [https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=writing+forum&oq=writing+forum&gs_l=hp.3..0l10.396.1786.0.2119.13.10.0.3.3.0.115.910.6j4.10.0....0...1c.1.19.hp.FqpVvPciBYg writing forums] and ask them about the challenge of writing things from old texts like these, and how to deal with the issue of paraphrasing and direct quotations while making sure everything remains accurate and matches the source and does not misrepresent or misquote. Also how to write in a journalistic style with no embellishment or decoration and so on. It would be helpful to look at these external links and talk to people who can give advice so you'll get opinions from other people as well. The steps are understanding what the problem is, and what caused things to be in this state, eliminating those approaches and changing course. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 06:57, 14 July 2013 (PDT) | |||
::::: Okay, I have now given exact cut-and-paste wording for everything I quoted. In my professional opinion, we are dealing with low-quality translation a lot of the time (I can tell by comparing different translations and noting the poor English expression). Sticking to only one person's translation causes some sacrifice of accuracy in meaning, but if you are willing to live with that, it's your call. | |||
::::: A couple of the quotes are not readily available in English. You noticed the one about "I never had a better wife than Khadijah," which was in fact on my list of references to check, so I must have noted earlier that I still didn't have a source for that. The source is Ibn Hanbal. On the positive side, that means it can't possibly be Shi'a propaganda but is an acceptable Sunni citation. Ibn Hanbal's quote continues in the same way as the versions found in Bukhari and Muslim. On the negative side, I'm having to take an educated guess as to which of the English translations of the sentence scattered over the web is likely to be closest (most likely the one that offers least clarity in English!). I've asked my Arab friends to check what the original says so that we can make a good translation together. | |||
::::: The most recent version is now in Sandbox 1. I've cleared my other sandboxes.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (PDT) | |||
::::::Thanks. I agree sometimes the translations may not be correct/done right but if the quotes are not usable that means we cant use quotes at all (because according to rules quotes have to be verbatim or they shouldn't be used if they are not). I can't think of a case where quotes were created/modified which were not present in the source. We'll take a look. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:27, 18 July 2013 (PDT) | |||
:::::::Hi 1234567. I'm sorry to say your work is no longer suitable for the site. Unfortunately, most of our previous objections remain. We will leave your article about Aisha in the sandbox indefinitely (it may be blanked, but you will still have access to it if needed). I wish you luck on future projects and thank you for your time and effort at WikiIslam. It was much appreciated.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 21:37, 23 July 2013 (PDT) | |||