Talk:Malawian Americans

Africa: Malawi Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Malawi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Malawi.

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paraphrasing a source to impose an interpretation of an ambiguous source

I would like to know why there are users who believe that quote is better or equal to explain with words a text, although, based on the policies of wikipedia, you must explain in your own words the text, rather than quote, always you can, as in the case of the organizations mentioned in this article.--Isinbill (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is that? It is far better to quote an ambiguous source than to use creative writing to impose your own interpretation about what the source is saying. Your edits have been disruptive and are unconstructive. AfricaTanz (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can modify the errors of interpretation that I make in the article, but explain things with our words is always better than quoting information of the sources.

Because our views are different, I decided to see what other editors thinks about our views on the Wikipedia:Help desk. I'd suggest you take a look at this page. The seccion in which I wrote is "Paraphrase or explain with my words a source about a partnership?"--Isinbill (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing is preferable to direct quotes. See WP:V#Verifiability_and_other_principles for the specific policy statement. Also, try to be careful of accusations of disruption. They can be construed as a violation of assuming good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]