User talk:Cathylinch1997
/* Are non academic sources considered as valid sources.?*/ new section
[edit]Can someone answer my question please and thank? For example islamic History books written by Islamic scholars?
March 2022
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Siege of Uthman, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 03:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ok thank you, I will talk a look. Cathylinch1997 (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sufyan al-Thawri. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
- If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place
{{Help me}}on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. - The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sufyan al-Thawri was changed by Cathylinch1997 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.879386 on 2022-04-02T01:12:10+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
[edit] Hello, I'm Iskandar323. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A lack of adequate sourcing is not automatically grounds for the removal of content. If the content is plausibly accurate, your first port of call should be to look for better sourcing. Your second port of call should be to add cleanup notes. Deletion, especially on short or poorly fleshed out articles, should only be your last port of call. (Ditto the section blanking on Abu Bakr) Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry I will keep that in mind for later on. Cathylinch1997 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- are Islamic history books considered as a proper source or self research? Cathylinch1997 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, it depends on the book. The History of the Prophets and Kings by Al-Tabari, for instance, is one of the very best sources for Islamic history, and Al-Tabari is quite an impartial writer, typically presenting all the versions of a certain recounting of events that he has collected without bias. Obviously most of these sources are still considered to be primary, so where available, the ideal scenario is to have a reliable, secondary source covering the needed details from a modern academic perspective. However, primary sources can still be quoted directly, particularly where they add color, or if secondary sources are lacking; they just needs to be clearly attributed. In The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays article, the quote from Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid is fine; the dodgy part is actually at the start of that paragraph where it says "Some medieval Shia scholars considered the authenticity of the book to be valid...", which is the sort of generalizing Wikivoice statement that 100 per cent needs to be cited to a reliable secondary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the clarification, I am still new to this thing Cathylinch1997 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, it depends on the book. The History of the Prophets and Kings by Al-Tabari, for instance, is one of the very best sources for Islamic history, and Al-Tabari is quite an impartial writer, typically presenting all the versions of a certain recounting of events that he has collected without bias. Obviously most of these sources are still considered to be primary, so where available, the ideal scenario is to have a reliable, secondary source covering the needed details from a modern academic perspective. However, primary sources can still be quoted directly, particularly where they add color, or if secondary sources are lacking; they just needs to be clearly attributed. In The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays article, the quote from Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid is fine; the dodgy part is actually at the start of that paragraph where it says "Some medieval Shia scholars considered the authenticity of the book to be valid...", which is the sort of generalizing Wikivoice statement that 100 per cent needs to be cited to a reliable secondary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)