3

my answer referring to stories about prophet muhammad is deleted. part of that deleted answer and why it is deleted? a comment refers to meta q. #112 enter image description here and i think this is not enough to delete it, because

  1. it is just a question and answer, it is not site's faq
  2. this question is only about reliable sources, but if you look at another question to which it refers, #1, most voted answers say: "Perhaps if a thorough enough answer is given, a reference wouldn't be required, but usually it would", "It doesn't even have to be a totally irrefutable source; it can range from believable to reputable to trust-worthy to actual evidence.", so it is voted to allow not only that scientific links, but just some links should be, or at least thorough answer (without links)!
  3. the answer to q. 112 with most votes, linking to scientific sites, says "Note that this is not a whitelist".
  4. the idea in this hadith is very simple and straightforward. no food and no water may work as a trigger meaning no resourses to use for pregnancy and child growth, and even as no resourses for sperm production, so it should deactivate/passivate sexual desire. and the answer in q. 112 says "We should downvote if there are no sources, unless it is widely known (for example, the statement "If you get too cold you die" is a little unnecessary to backup. The actual temperature (35 C and less) should be linked.".
  • 1
    Your links are a bit outdated, sites change and this site is still in beta. Current consensus is that all answers must be backed up with reliable references: health.meta.stackexchange.com/a/777/8212 – Narusan Feb 27 '18 at 17:06
  • @Narusan-in-coma that's a useful reference- it should be pointed out that he was provided the link to the outdated meta Q in the comment :) – bertieb Feb 27 '18 at 17:34
  • @Narusan-in-coma 1) the answer has only 2 votes 2) it says "Low quality sources are permitted!" 3) it does not strictly define what is reliable sources, does not define it as scientific research papers. – qdinar Feb 28 '18 at 16:01
  • @qdinar I was just linking one of the more recent posts. Here is a list of accepted sources, and I can tell you that since I've been a member of the site, sources were always mandatory. Apart from that, we are a scientific site, just as Graham explained below – Narusan Feb 28 '18 at 18:24
  • @Narusan-in-coma in one hand, this source is like belong to "International, national, state governmental health websites", because muslims are like a nationality and sayings of prophet muhammad are like what is commanded by national mass media, and they were published as book after several hundred years after his death in muslim state. and that answer allows even junk science. – qdinar Mar 1 '18 at 16:14
7

And answers from Chinese Traditional Medicine would also likely be deleted since we're after science based observations that have been rigorously replicated. If you believe fasting has been tested in a prospective trial, then give us the link.

Referring to religious texts are only on-topic for their respective sites such as islam.stackexchange.com and judaism.stackexchange.com

  • 1
    This should really be part of the tour or how to answer page if policy is to mod delete answers rather than the usual mechanisms (DV, LQ review etc) – bertieb Feb 27 '18 at 13:35
  • 1
    @bertieb: It Is worth pointing out that the answer already had 3 downvotes and would have been nuked by the system if JohnP and one other user have downvoted. Also, questions with low quality flags can get deleted if multiple users recommend that in the review queue. If a mod completes the review queue, they always overrule everything (so even if he was the last one to vote for the deletion, it would be solely attributed to him) – Narusan Feb 27 '18 at 16:36
  • @Narusan-in-coma is the -5 score autonuke documented somewhere (don't see it in community FAQ)? I've seen spam-flagged posts disappear at that threshold, but I could swear I've seen answers scored lower than -5... As for the mod thing, there is at least one mod who don't participate in review queue (on another SE site) because their vote is binding. It's a tricky balance. – bertieb Feb 27 '18 at 17:23
  • I'm leery of the approach because from the new user's perspective, they have an answer which is downvoted and deleted without having the chance to improve it. I'm not advocating for the inclusion of religious texts as medical sources, just being a bit more clear up-front about it; rather than back-handing a user for being unfamiliar with the latest meta Q :) – bertieb Feb 27 '18 at 17:34
  • 1
    I have no problem with this. We get enough religious objections in real life that we don't need it on health.se – Graham Chiu Feb 27 '18 at 18:33
  • 1
    @bertieb: Pardon me, it’s actually either 6 recommend deletion votes or 6 flags (and a bunch of other stuff). I‘ve previously organised deletion of posts (both Qs and As) which were spam, insults or blatantly wrong and I remembered needing a group of 6 participants for that too work efficiently. – Narusan Feb 27 '18 at 20:05
  • @Narusan-in-coma Thanks for clarifying; there are still bits of how SE works that I'm finding out about so good to know these things :) – bertieb Feb 27 '18 at 21:08
  • "we're after science based observations that have been rigorously replicated" - i think this hadith then was many times suggested by muslims to muslims, and probably by medics like Avicenna. and i have never heard anything against it, any disproval. these are equivalent of replications and confirmations of that it works. – qdinar Mar 1 '18 at 16:39
  • 3
    I‘m afraid you’re getting it The burden of proof is with the one postulating a thesis, not with those opposing it. So We don’t need to give a disproval, you have to find scientific studies supporting it. I’m afraid oral tradition doesn’t count. In Christian mythology, aspects were repeated over multiple centuries (as an example, that bad smell causes infections and other diseases) orally that are nothing but bollocks. You need to find a modern, scientific study showing that Hadith is in fact achieving what you claim it does, or otherwise your answer does not meet standards of this site. – Narusan Mar 1 '18 at 19:59
  • 2
    not just this site, the standards for any health care by a professional vs a priest. – Graham Chiu Mar 2 '18 at 4:21
  • being after something does not mean yet denying something other, which maybe more or less acceptable. also other asnwers on this site do not deny strictly anything except modern scientific articles. – qdinar Mar 4 '18 at 8:21
  • If you want to discuss magical thinking, use an appropriate site and don't troll here. – Graham Chiu Mar 4 '18 at 8:27
  • i do not want to discuss magical thinking. as i added to the question, this way is simple and straight. it could be found by ancient people by experiments/research on themselves. – qdinar Mar 5 '18 at 18:53
  • appeals to authority, especially ancient ones, are one of the lowest forms of evidence, and not acceptable here. – Graham Chiu Mar 5 '18 at 19:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .