Talk:A Common Word Between Us and You
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
[edit] origins
A section should be added explaining that this letter is a follow up to a smaller letter last year, which had been a response to Pope Benedict's Sept 2006 speech that linked Islam to violence and quoted a Byzantine emperor’s description of Muhammad as “evil and inhuman." CClio333 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Official Website: Comments
Dear Bless Sins,
Thanks you for your comments on the article. Your comments "comments of anyone (i could post a comment as well) can't be considered reliable sources" have been duly noted. I have reworded that section in response.
Do please note that the paragraph simply serves to give an idea of the range of scope of the responses on the Official Website: it doesn't claim the comments are correct or accurate. As such, a reference to where the comments can be found is given. I.e. this paragraph in the article is only claiming that commentators say such-and-such, not that the comments are accurate.
To discuss this further, or if you have any problems concerning this, please feel free to write on this talk page.
Regards, 210.49.195.223 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I remove the whole section on comments as it was pure OR. I suggest you take a look at WP:Reliable sources & Wikipedia:Verifiability. To put it bluntly, comments on a website are not usually appropriate for wikipedia as we are an encylopaedia not a newspaper or blog. We need reliable secondary sources for most of what we cite. If a reliable secondary source discusses the comments then ir may be appropriate to mention this in the article. But summarising the comments (mostly positive) as well as a wikipedia editor picking and choosing comments from random people to put in the article is not appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Issues not address
As it stands, this entire section appears to be OR. If another source has discusses the letter and mentioned issues not discussed in the letter, ir would probably be appropriate to mention this. However it is not approriate for an editor to read the letter and decide what issues are not discussed in the letter, that by definition is OR. Unless references are found, the section probably should be removed Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
