Talk:Rebecca Masterton

Revert Vs Convert

No more relevant

"Rebecca Masterson, originally a Catholic, became a Muslim twelve years ago and has interviewed women converts for a research project at London University. Giving an interview to Economist" Wikitionary defines Reversion as: Noun reversion (countable and uncountable; plural reversions) The action of reverting something. The action of returning to a former condition or practice; reversal. The fact of being turned the reverse way. The action of turning something the reverse way. (law) The return of an estate to the donor or grantor after expiry of the grant. (law) An estate which has been returned in this manner. (law) The right of succeeding to an estate, or to another possession. The right of succeeding to an office after the death or retirement of the holder. The return of a genetic characteristic after a period of suppression. A sum payable on a person's death. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC) According to Islam every child is born on nature and its the parents of the child who makes him Christian/jew/Muslim or any other religions. If she goes back to Islam, it means that she has gone back to her nature so she is a revert. This is the term that most of the reverts use when they embrace Islam. She has used the term "Reverts" herself so I will prefer keeping it as Reversion to Islam. --Lubna Rizvi 16:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC) The problem with that is we aren't discussing the technical theology here, the language that should be used is the common usage English, otherwise it leads to confusion. I'm not familiar if we have such a article in the series of articles on Islam but if not it might make a suitable one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC) It is a doctrine of Islam that everyone is born Muslim, so anyone turning to Islam later in life is reverting to their perinatal condition after a period away (for whatever reason) Therefore the technical term would be "revert" rather than "convert". Since, this article is emphasizing on the biography of a revert, so it is important to use the best terminology. --Lubna Rizvi 16:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC) This is currently the consensus we have here [[1]] and we do use the word conversion not reversion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I appreciate your concerns, I will send an email to the editor since he might not know the exact difference. --Lubna Rizvi 16:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. Articles should generally not be written from a first or second person perspective. In prose writing, the first person ("I" and "we") point of view and second person ("you" and "your") point of view typically evoke a strong narrator. While this is acceptable in works of fiction, it is generally unsuitable in an encyclopedia, where the writer should be invisible to the reader. Moreover, pertaining specifically to Wikipedia's policies, the first person often inappropriately implies a point of view inconsistent with WP:NPOV, and second person is inappropriately associated with step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO). First and second person pronouns should ordinarily be used only in attributed direct quotations relevant to the subject of the article. As with many such guidelines, however, there are exceptions: for instance, in professional mathematics writing, use of the first person plural ("we") as "inclusive we" is widespread. Use common sense to determine if the chosen perspective is in the spirit of this guideline. Gender-neutral pronouns should be used where the gender is not specific; see Gender-neutral language for further information. Punctuation marks that appear in the article should be used only per generally accepted practice. Exclamation marks (!) should be used only if they occur in direct quotations. I have followed the guidelines and since the page is under construction, you should refrain yourself in putting up unnecessary tags. --Lubna Rizvi 10:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC) yeah the problem is the article is written pretty poorly. Instead of informing people as an encyclopedia does it directs people to other sites and does not follow the WP:MOS you can continue editing it but if it has issues the tags should stay. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I suppose you should keep your suggestions to yourself. I am going to find a way to block you since you have been very rude and like I said putting up unnecessary tags. It meets up the guidelines. --Lubna Rizvi 10:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Good luck with that! Here's a place to go and make a report WP:ANI please remember to post the notice on my page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I have corrected the section heading from "Reversion" to "Conversion" - the source clearly states that Masterson was Christian and had not been Muslim prior to her conversion. Although the Islamic faith may believe that everyone is born Muslim, the consensus here at Wikipedia, as correctly pointed out by HIAB, is to use the term "conversion." GregJackP Boomer! 13:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC) As a more general point, nothing should be written in Wikipedia's voice that implies the correctness of any religious belief. It is fine to quote someone expressing a religious belief, but Wikipedia articles must not themselves be written from a religious perspective. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) just want to ask if it is ok to remove this thread since the section is no more in the article. -- Lubna Rizvi 18:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC) On articles, we don't delete talkpage threads. If an archive is set up, they can be archived, but they are kept for historical purposes. I had problems setting up my own talkpage archive, so I'm not the guy to do it here, but if you put {{Help me}} on your talkpage, asking how to set up an article talkpage archive, someone will show up to help you or at least point you to someone that can help. GregJackP Boomer! 19:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you! -- Lubna Rizvi 19:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

References tag

I've converted all of the references to use {{cite web}} and I've removed the relevant tag. However, ref 2 is not working properly and I can't see why - can anyone see what's wrong with it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- Lubna Rizvi 23:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Promotional" tag

After the copy editing of this article, I don't see any wording that still looks promotional to me, so I have removed that tag. If anyone thinks it should be restored, would they please tell us what they see as promotional wording here so that we can discuss and resolve it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article reads great, much improved from the original incarnation (A first time article is almost always rough)! The work Boing and Justice007 have done in basically rewriting this article and whipping it in shape is awesome. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It was mostly Justice007 - I just reworked some references, and when I came back to it today to do some more, the hard work had already been done! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So your work I did, any reward then please?. Actually no need of that, only just to say.Justice007 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You can share my kitten :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both of you...because of you guys article look magnificent and yes, a lot of hard work by both of you and I promise next I will create a better article and I have learn a lot from your editing. -- Lubna Rizvi 18:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

COI Tag

Per this [[2]] The article creator is a friend of the article subject. This is a COI hence why I tagged it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

She has over thousand of friends on her Facebook page but it doesn't necessarily means that I know her personally. I had requested some information and that's all. I never had any personal contact (face to face) with her. She belongs to the same community (shia) as I am and I have watched her on TV. So, I will suggest to take it down. You have definitely misunderstood me. -- Lubna Rizvi 00:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Go for it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice reply, Hell (hope you don't mine me calling you that for short) - I was about to say I agree with Lubnarizvi, but no need now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries it's usually Hell or HiaB as long as you don't call me Hellina. Happy New Years [[3]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not seen this discussion (except the initial post earlier). LadyofShalott 01:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)