Talk:The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man

"doesn't correspond to the facts"

What does this edit summary mean: "the opening sentence refers to Afsai's theory, and doesn't correspond to the facts." What facts doesn't it correspond to?—Biosketch (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement is what Afsai alleges. It happens to be wrong. Hence allegedly. Allegedly would be required anyway since the article simply repeats here what Afsai believes.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that doesn't answer the question. If it's an opinion of yours that it "happens to be wrong," why the edit summary referencing "facts"? If indeed the edit is based on facts, then what are they?—Biosketch (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I answered you appropriately. You are asking me to vent my own knowledge. It is not an opinion of mine. It's an objective verifiable fact for anyone versed in these things. If you dislike the edit summary's second half, just accept the obvious fact in the first half: i.e., that the article stated as a fact what happens to be one of many opinions in Afsai's essay. In wiki's neutral voice, you do not translate an opinionable source's arguments into statements of fact. That is why 'allegedly' has to be there. This is basic. What I know privately, I've been told for 6 years, shouldn't be mentioned on wikipedia, since I am not WP:RS. When I have explained things, I get WP:OR accusations thrown my way, simply for using a talk page to explain what, to me and I guess a lot of area scholars who don't read wikipedia, is well-known. I'm sure some area scholar, if Afsai's article receives attention, will pull it apart, and we will duly rewrite the article, if it is not removed or merged (about which I have no opinion).Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To make a long story short, when you made the edit and said "facts," what you actually meant was, "stuff that I'm sure is true but that no one else can objectively verify other than myself." Yes?—Biosketch (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To make a long story short, you ignored the first part of my edit summary which gave the indisputable policy-compliant reason for introducing 'allegedly', and, dissatisfied I won't say what I and others know, you then assert 'no one else can objectively verify' when you mean, 'I (Biosketch) can't verify' what it took Nishidani, and, as he was pleased to discover, others had independently verified just as quickly, just an hour's checking. It took Afsai months to write that essay, while failing to look at the elephant in the room, which would have wrecked his thesis, so you're not alone. Big deal.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The policy with which editors are obligated to comply is WP:No original research. That policy states that all "facts, allegations, and ideas" used in editing articles must be verifiable. Shofar is a reliable source. The article that you've convinced yourself is merely an opinion was published in Shofar, and that makes it a reliable source for information on this site until demonstrated otherwise, and you have not demonstrated otherwise. What you're doing is putting your own convictions, your faith in another editor who days ago said he discovered some articles that he's since been reluctant to reveal, above the policies that are pillars of Wikipedia. Now, if you have documented evidence supporting your claim that the thesis "doesn't correspond to facts," you need to present that evidence here. If you do not, you must retract your claim and remove the unsupported weasel word you added. Or, there is a third option.—Biosketch (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. How extraordinary: that you interpret WP:No original research to mean that an editor should have no knowledge of the subject he edits! You're remarkably confused over the difference between an article, where WP:OR applies, and talk pages where it is irrelevant. What I have said here in response to your fishing expeditions has not affected my judgement in the edit I made. To the contrary. I have asked for evidence that Afsai says the :'quotation' . . began to appear in published sources in the 1990's. Neither you nor Shrike have replied. If it is in the article (I have a copy) then it is Afsai's view, not a fact. This is kindergarten level knowledge of policy.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to revert you per WP:V as source doesn't seem to use this or similar word--Shrike (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to revert me. You chose to revert me because you ignored my point, using WP:V speciously, or rather went ahead and reverted without deigning to reply to my policy-based objection.

' . . is a quotation that began to appear in published sources in the 1990's.'

So, if that, a claim posing as a fact, is Afsai's position, please source it, showing how it paraphrases the relevant assertion with great precision in that paper, otherwise it is editorial WP:OR.

Secondly, respond to the primary objection above. If this is Afsai's view, why is the view of one writer, with no secondary confirmation, narrated as though it were a fact. Apropos WP:V, read the section on Exceptional claims. This is a claim that contradicts a frequently cited )notion.

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[8] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

'surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;

That itself is sufficient to get the article deleted, if one had a mind to press the point. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Biosketch is quite right that Afsai's article is a reliable source (by Wikipedia standards). The error is in concluding that what it says can be stated as fact. The problem with that is that a large number of people, much more eminent than Afsai, have presented the bride story as a fact. The OR here is to judge that Afsai is correct and the other reliable sources are incorrect. NOR and NPOV actually require us to present Afsai's article as standing alone against a much larger group of sources. Presenting his opinions as opinions is the very least that is required by the rules. Zero^talk 13:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If anyone here has challenged Afsai's article as not RS which it patently is, I've missed something. It's actually an important article because it starts an interesting hare, but misses an awful lot in the pursuit of anti-Zionist prejudices. I fail to understand why experienced editors like Biosketch and Shrike fail to understand, at least here, that Afsai's views must be given as his views, not as facts, as Shrike certainly makes out in his policy-indifferent use of the revert. Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll try to explain things more clearly. As long as there aren't sources in the article disputing Afsai's thesis, there's no policy-based justification in using expressions like "according to" or "alleges" or referring to his findings as "opinions," because Shofar meets all of Wikipedia's criteria as an RS. The best thing to do, especially since the two of you are claiming to have access to sources that conflict with Afsai's findings, is to put those sources in the article – or here on the Discussion page – and then modify the wording accordingly. Summarizing an edit making reference to "facts" when the "facts" are never disclosed isn't a way to improve anything. If there are conflicting facts, just add them. Why all this beating around the bush?—Biosketch (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What policy are you citing? The article explains one author's thesis. It opens with a statement of ostensible fact, and then presents the thesis. At best, even were you right, this would have had to be the other way round, so that it was clear to the reader that the generalization is not a fact, but putatively Afsai's thesis.

(2) I've asked for a day now. No one has supplied me with the page number where Afsai says the cliché in question 'is a quotation that began to appear in published sources in the 1990's.'

Unless that's forthcoming, I am perfectly entitled to remove it as, apparently, WP:OR. Either that or I'll put allegedly back in.

Your invitation to myself and Zero to provide sources in the article that contradict this RS while not addressing Afsai's paper, is an invitation to violate WP:OR.

Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I didn't found this phrase after rechecking the source anyhow the use of word allegedly is not appropriate I don't think it should be used in wiki if the source doesn't use it.If you think its disputed then ask source for it.--Shrike (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)