| Revision as of 22:55, 29 August 2014 editOsamaK (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,183 editsm OsamaK moved page Talk:IslamQA.com to Talk:IslamQA.info← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:27, 3 January 2016 edit undoHuman10.0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users568 edits →Controversial Fatwas section: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talk page}} | {{talk page}} | ||
| == Controversial Fatwas section == | |||
| {{re|Shanghaienne}} Why have you re-introduced and how was the deletion of the section 'malicious'? That section is just a list of fatwas some user(s) have found personally controversial. The references provided are links to the fatwas on the islamqa.info website (i.e., primary sources). No reliable secondary sources have been cited to back up the claims of controversy. One source cited to back up a claim is a blog, but blogs are not considered ] according to Misplaced Pages, and the use of the ibitimes.co.uk story is ]. | |||
| As per ]: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." These requirements are not fulfilled by that section. It is therefore ]. —] (]) 21:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:27, 3 January 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IslamQA.info article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Controversial Fatwas section
@Shanghaienne: Why have you re-introduced this section and how was the deletion of the section 'malicious'? That section is just a list of fatwas some user(s) have found personally controversial. The references provided are links to the fatwas on the islamqa.info website (i.e., primary sources). No reliable secondary sources have been cited to back up the claims of controversy. One source cited to back up a claim is a blog, but blogs are not considered reliable sources according to Misplaced Pages, and the use of the ibitimes.co.uk story is WP:SYNTHESIS.
As per WP:PRIMARY: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." These requirements are not fulfilled by that section. It is therefore original research. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)