Misplaced Pages

Talk:IslamQA.info

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CounterTime (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 11 March 2016 (Controversial Fatwas section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:13, 11 March 2016 by CounterTime (talk | contribs) (Controversial Fatwas section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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)

@Human10.0: As I said in one edit summ.: "just because no secondary sources are provided doesn't mean it should be removed", here the secondary sources should be about describing each fatwa as being "controversial", this however does not mean that the statement of each fatwa should be deleted. 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: First of all, thanks for finally engaging on the talk page (for the record, I would like to mention that this conversation is taking place after I successfully sought page protection for the IslamQA.info wiki page because people kept ignoring my requests to have a discussion on the talk page before re-adding a section composed entirely of WP:OR on said wiki page).
To summarise: The section in question was titled "Controversial Fatwas and Extremist Religious Beliefs" and contained summarisations of cherry-picked fatwas accessible on the IslamQA.info website. But there were no non-primary sources in the entire section that described the listed fatwas as "controversial." It was just a list of fatwas some user(s) and/or IPs had found personally troubling. Since there was no proof that the fatwas were actually controversial, the entire section was original research (OR). As per WP:VERIFY: "Misplaced Pages does not publish original research." Misplaced Pages:No original research states: "Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought: all material in Misplaced Pages must be attributable to a reliable, published source To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." None of the citations provided in the 'Controversial fatwas' section gave direct support for claims of controversy being presented. There was not even reasonable expectation that any of the claims of controversy in the section were supported by a published, reliable source. As I have shown, Misplaced Pages does not publish OR so the material had to be deleted. Also notice how the "Controversy in Saudi Arabia" section of the wiki page was left intact because it is backed up by non-primary sources. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Human10.0: There's something called WP:BURDEN, this, doesn't fall only on the one who added those sources, but also, the one who wants to delete them, amongst whom you are. So just because there are no secondary or tertiary sources doesn't mean it should be deleted. Rather, one can say that we should add tags in descriptions, thereof, of the fatwas being "controversial", which is itself a label to avoid, WP:LABEL.
As such the information proposed shouldn't be deleted, rather, citation needed tags should be made there.
19:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: By citing WP:BURDEN, you have convinced me even more that the OR section should not be re-added (and should be swiftly deleted if it is ever re-added) until reliable non-primary sources are cited to support it. WP:BURDEN clearly states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" .
You have misunderstood WP:BURDEN: nowhere does it even remotely imply that one has to prove the non-existence of controversy before deletion, rather it says one has to prove the existence of controversy before inclusion (i.e., the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that so-and-so fatwas are controversial). I do not know why you are still stating that "just because there are no secondary or tertiary sources doesn't mean should be deleted" when I have quoted Misplaced Pages policies according to which the lack of "secondary or tertiary sources" is reason enough to delete the OR section. Further, WP:BURDEN encourages us to add the tag only if we think that reliable sources directly supporting the material exist but as I have stated before, there is "not even reasonable expectation that any of the claims of controversy in the section supported by a published, reliable source."
Long story short: If you want to restore the OR section, find reliable non-primary sources that directly support all the claims being made in it. Until then there is no good reason to include it on the IslamQA.info wiki page. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Human10.0: Well I think there's yet a small chance of such a source being existent, and I think that, subsequently, we shouldn't delete the material and leave tags. 18:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: Have you found any existent sources yet that state so-and-so fatwas are controversial? If not, we are under no obligation to re-add the original research based just on the unsupported assumption that "there's yet a small chance of such a source being existent." —Human10.0 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Just because I didn't find a RS for a certain claim in an article doesn't mean I should immediately delete it. And moreover, you're the one who made the claim that quote-unquote "there is "not even reasonable expectation that any of the claims of controversy in the section supported by a published, reliable source."", the WP:BURDEN falls on you. 19:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)