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. Zerotalk 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)
 * (1)You reverted without checking the text. This was a very simple call, and we should leave reverts and disagreements to serious matters. Wiki is not a battlefield where the obvious is contested without checking for 2 days.
 * (2)If you dislike the word 'allege', it's curious that you reverted my use of it, but leave several examples of it Tyndale uses untouched?
 * *(a) 'alleging'
 * *((b) 'alleges
 * *(c) 'the allegedly fake quotation' (twice)
 * It was precisely because Tyndale had used it below that I applied it. It's called being consistent, and looking at the facts and the text before looking at who did the edit.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Biosketch said "As long as there aren't sources in the article disputing Afsai's thesis...", but of course there are such already. Avi Shlaim for one, and the last sentence of the article names 3 others (and could easily be expanded to 30). A dispute between sources does not give special status to the most recent. Many sources (at least 5 named in the article) claim the story is true, one (Afsai) claims it isn't.  If Afsai had provided a smoking gun (e.g., the true origin of the story or an admission that Heikal invented it), that would be a new claim not previously covered.  But he doesn't, he only decides it is fabricated on the basis of his own failure to find the original source. Zerotalk 00:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't follow that structure; i.e., Shlaim and the rest aren't presented as disputing Afsai's thesis that they used the story without bothering to thoroughly check where it originally came from. In fact, they don't dispute that they don't know the real origin of the story; they essentially confirmed that to the writer in personal correspondence, and the Afsai article is an RS for Shlaim's and Karmi's confessions in that regard. Afsai, and now a couple other scholars who agree with him, are the only ones arguing that Shlaim and Karmi etc. used the story without examining its history. We don't need to say that explicitly, but if that's what we're arguing over for three days now then we can.—Biosketch (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right about the article structure. At the moment it is just a dump of Afsai's claims. Why are Shlaim's and Karmi's "confession"s worthy of a Wikipedia article? Why is using something only on the basis of a secondary source worse than claiming it is fake on the basis of no source at all? The so-called support from other scholars is just noise as none of them claim to have researched it. This rubbish article should be deleted until someone wants to write a proper article. Zerotalk 10:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd prefer to wait a little longer and see if any further interest is generated among scholars before sealing this article's fate. Since the deletion discussion's been extended, there's still more time to see if anything happens.—Biosketch (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have supported the retention of the article had it been a serious piece of quality detective work, instead of a coathanger to get at a number of people whose politics or views one dislikes. I don't think wikipedia's aims are served by the citation of stuff that has such a clear less than scholarly polemical intent. Afsai derails what little utility his essay has by using the piece to assault all of Karmi's views he dislikes, though many of them, like Arafat's death, can be shown easily to be shared by insider Israelis. Deletion does not mean the work is lost, since we all retain copies of the article. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP
Just a technicality. Afsai quotes private e-mails from Shlaim, Karmi and Pagden. I can't see any acknowledgement in the essay that permission from the three to print their private correspondence had been given. Is permission required for a scholar to print private communications, in essays? Does this raise any problems in terms of WP:BLP?Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is forbidden by the law to publish private correspondance without the agreement of the author but only the author can complain for this. 81.247.161.224 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if it is forbidden by law, and this article does publish private correspondence, and gives in the notes no indication permission has been obtained, it puts wikipedia in a delicate position when it cites, per Afsai, these emails. This requires clarification from the appropriate policy board.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Which law says that it is forbidden to publish a private correspondence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.243.161 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Afsai contacting scholars who used the story.
Why shouldn't we note in the article that Afsai actually contacted scholars who used the story but they were unable to provide a primary source? Seems pretty important to me. I deliberately didn't mention which scholars or what they said, hoping that would make it non-controversial. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No explanation was given so I had to revert.--Shrike (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apropos suggest vs allege, Afsai clearly affirms that the quotation is a fabrication, and condemns at length scholars citing it for wrongdoing. It's a vintage Zionist anecdote, not a 'modern' fabrication by Haykal, and since Afsai makes serious charges against those who repeat it, Afsai is alleging something. Haykal's version just added the rabbis and the date, but he got the quote from Jewish sources, as any Zionist worth his salt would have perceived immediately. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The rule says to only use the word "alleged" if it is used by another source, but which source uses that word Nishidani? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.243.161 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules say don't write an article using only one source, but we stretched them there. Afsai uses allege several times, and he himself alleges wrongdoing. I'm sure someone in academia will wake up and see the utter mess he made of his thesis, and write it up in an obscure footnote, and we'll quote that for allegations. But this is a case of WP:IAR (in accepting that a one source paper can become the substance of an article) and in a lot of other things, and also commonsense. He got everything wrong in his major contentions, so we ain't dealing witn facts, but assertions and allegations in plain English.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

anyone want to delete this "article"?
seems very shallow. can i go ahead and ask for its deletion? Soosim (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It was already up for deletion once. what do you think changed since then? Dixy flyer (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a major soundbite used by anti-Israeli types and it's surely only a matter of time before they add the primary source that they have been asked so many times to provide. Unless there is a general article on anti-Zionist myths that this could be added to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.10.243 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)