User talk:Yujoong

why was "Earliest critcism of Muhammed for his marriage to Aisha was in 1574 " removed ~2025-31383-46 (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Your source is a "primary source". Primary sources can only support simple, descriptive facts and cannot be used for interpretation or historical arguments. As per WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:V, it require that analysis and context come from reliable "secondary sources". Because of this, a 1574 book is not sufficient on its own for certain claims. Selenne (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

1574 book is a simple fact not historial argueent ~2025-34520-18 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

An editor has already informed you that your source is not acceptable under Wikipedia's sourcing policies. You will need to provide a "reliable secondary source". If you cannot, please do not restore it. Continuing to reinsert it despite this warning may lead you to be block on this site. Selenne (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

show where editor told me mysource isnt acceptable ~2025-34520-18 (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s on the Talk page of "Criticism of Muhammad". The editor explained that calling your source "the earliest" is original research, since that claim requires an expert secondary source. They also said that inserting material without proper secondary sourcing goes against WP:DUE and WP:OR, and that the existing statements in the article are supported by recent secondary sources, not by older primary texts. Selenne (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

i didnt say its earilest this time, i said in 1500s juan andres criticzed muhammed for his marriage to aisha ~2025-34520-18 (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You may not be repeating the “earliest” claim this time, but the issue the editor raised still applies: Juan Andres is a "primary source" and adding his statements requires supporting secondary sources that discuss the context, significance, and reception of his work. Without that, inserting his criticism into the article falls under WP:OR and WP:DUE.

So the point is not whether he wrote it in the 1500s, but that you need a reliable secondary source "analyzing" this material before it can be added. Selenne (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

define primary sources and secondary sources, i dont understanfd what they mean ~2025-34520-18 (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources are the "original" texts/documents from the time like letters, speeches, or in this case, Juan Andre's own writings. Secondary sources are "modern" works by historians/scholars who explain or analyze those older texts. In Wikipedia we can't use a primary source to make our own historical claims because that becomes original research. We need a secondary source that actually discusses Juan Andres's criticism. Selenne (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It does get a little complicated. Andrés is a primary source WRT his own experiences as a former Muslim, but in the narrowest sense a secondary source when he writes about seventh-century events. For WP’s purposes, however, the age and polemical nature of his writing require us to treat him more like a primary source throughout, because his approach is nothing like a modern historian’s. (The same is the case even for ‘professional’ historians of the day, like Raphael Holinshed e.g.) FWIW I’m not strongly opposed to mentioning him in the article, but I won’t actively support it without a modern reference, especially one that might give us more to discuss than the mere fact that he used the marriage to attack Muhammad’s morals. What is the modern view of the sources he drew on? Was his argument taken up (or rebutted) by others before the 20th century? Did it influence contemporary European perceptions of Islam? (His book must have been fairly well known, considering the number of editions that were published in the decades following his death.) Without any such context it verges on trivia.—Odysseus1479 22:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Manipulated, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

NGC 628 (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

That image is a "19th century Orientalist" painting and does not meet WP:RS for illustrating Islamic legal/social history. Its inclusion gives undue weight WP:UNDUE, risks original synthesis WP:SYNTH, and may violate WP:NPOV by presenting a "speculative artistic depiction" as representative of Islamic practice. Selenne (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)