Talk:Twin Holy Birthdays

Order of birthdays

The wording needs to be updated to clarify that, while Baha'u'llah was born two years earlier, His is the second of the two birthdays. Gplittle (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth date synchronisation on alternative lunar calenders

I have attempted to add information regarding the alignment of the twin birthday observations with other lunar calendars, however user @Skyerise has reverted the changes, advising that the edits were original research, and to cite reliable sources. I am not sure how to make the sources more reliable, but the facts seem to be publicly accessible knowledge that anyone can independently cross-verify if they are capable of accessing the internet and identifying measurements from the publicly available information, kind of like how one would basically read the dates on a calendar. The proposed contribution is as follows:

• The observation dates appear to consistently fall on the second and third day of the tenth moon of the Chinese lunisolar calendar. However, while the Báb was born on the second day of the tenth moon of the year of the Earth Rabbit (1819 CE), there appear to be discrepant measurements perhaps caused by a time zone parallax time-of-day observation error as Baháʼu'lláh appears to be born on the fourth day of the tenth moon of the year of the Fire Ox (1817 CE).

ZebrahamZA (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

References

@ZebrahamZA: The problem is that it is synthesis, which is not permitted. You must cite a single source that specifically points out the parallel. Instead, you are drawing a conclusion from unrelated sources. Per WP:SYNTH,

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

None of the sources explicitly states the conclusion. To add any such material, you must provide a single reliable secondary source that draws the conclusion, you may not draw such a conclusion yourself from primary sources. Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)