User talk:Truthoverfalsehood

August 2020
Hello, I'm Girth Summit. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Military career of Muhammad seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Girth Summit  (blether) 12:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To explain further, we don't use words like 'treachery' or 'hypocrite' in Wikipedia's voice, that sort of judgement ought to be attributed. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Girth, I am new to Wikipedia editing. I am currently working on a book all about the Military career of Muhammad as was surprised to find such biased information as well as totally incorrect information. But point taken that using the word treachery could be viewed as biased, even though it was well known that this tribe was very treacherous. If you don't mind I will reword the edits but please know that what is written there atm is not at all accurate and playing into the anti-Muslims agenda. Kind regards, yasmin.
 * Hi Yasmin, could I ask you to be a bit more fulsome in your citations to your sources? In your recent edits, you have referenced 'hadith number 4396', and 'Battles by the Prophet by Sayyid Ameenul Hasan', but it's not clear what these are. Above the editing window, you should have a 'Cite' tool, which allows you to select from a number of different citation templates. I am assuming that 'Battles of the Prophet' is a book - you should use the 'Cite book' template for that, filling in author, title, publisher, ISBN, and crucially the page number/s which support the content you've added. I'm not sure what 'hadith number 4396' is, but I think that it's a religious primary source, which we shouldn't be using to support assertions of fact - we should use historical secondary sources for that. Could you perhaps revisit that bit? Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  14:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that extra information - will do that. Was wondering though, I have often seen hadith used as a source in other wiki articles...due to the rigorous nature of the hadith science itself. If it's considered a strong hadith, then they are considered totally reliable - probably a lot more than some historical work!
 * Hi - I can't speak for the instances of other articles, but it's possible that they are also misusing it. It could be used as a primary reference to support an assertion about what the hadith says, but reliability in Wikipedia terms is different from how it might be understood in other circles, and it wouldn't be considered reliable from our point of view for assertions of fact rendered in Wikipedia's voice. That's not an anti-Muslim bias - we wouldn't accept use of the Christian Bible either, for example. Our aim is to summarise what modern, scholarly secondary sources say about a subject, and so reliable sources are just that - modern, scholarly and secondary. This is covered at RS. Please remove any content you have added based solely on the hadith; I'd be happy to look at any other instances of usage to see whether they're compliant. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, have made that change, according to your request :). You may be interested to know that the Islamic science of Hadith is very rigorous. Each hadith has a verifiable chain of transmission. Each person in the chain having to be knowledgable and of good character, not known to lie, etc. There is an interesting article here about Imam Bukhari, one of the main collectors of hadith. His life is fascinating if you have a moment. https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/4/6605/Imam-al-Bukhari-and-the-science-of-Hadith