| Revision as of 22:13, 14 March 2016 editCounterTime (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,678 edits →Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:21, 5 January 2025 edit undoWizmut (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,083 edits add banner holder. adjust bot settings to the page is not blank (see WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE). move back 2024 topic |
| (529 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FLC |
|
|action1=FLC |
|
|action1date=17:05, 12 March 2012 |
|
|action1date=17:05, 12 March 2012 |
| Line 7: |
Line 9: |
|
|currentstatus=FFLC |
|
|currentstatus=FFLC |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=List of expeditions of Muhammad|date=14 March 2016|result='''keep'''}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=list|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= |
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=list|list=yes|Muslim=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=high}} |
|
==Some notes== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=List|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no|list=yes|Muslim=yes}} |
|
#Their is no POV fork with this article, because i have created 90% of the expeditions mentioned on that list, i do think the reasons given for each expedition match what the main article says, and i have rechecked most articles i created |
|
|
|
}} |
|
#Some might say, "why did you separate the casualties into Muslim and Non-Muslim, this might raise eyebrows if religious differences weren't underlying the expeditions", i did this because (1) The sources i used seperate them like this. they give 1 figure for Muslims casualties, and rest for the party which was attacked. (2) The word "enemy" suggests that the opposing party was AGAINST Muhammad or OPPOSING him, which was not the case for all those military expeditions. For example, according to this Muslim scholar, 80% of Muhammad's expeditions were offensive http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm , hope this explains it. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
#Regarding the duplicate refs, there are quite a lot, and i was hoping a bot (called YOBOT) would fix those problems after i posted the article--] (]) 22:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
==Reverted new column about commander on muslim side== |
|
|
|
|algo = old(365d) |
|
i have reverted a column about the commander on the muslim side because:<br> |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:List of expeditions of Muhammad/Archive %(counter)d |
|
1) sometimes there was more than 1 commander<br> |
|
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
2) only the sariyyah had sifferent commanders, the ghzawah all had muhammad as the commander<br> |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
3) the data wasnt referenced, lets be consistant, if were gonna add somethign add refs<br> |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}} |
|
4) it makes column too wide (futhermore if somone wants to know the commander they can from the article, so there is an alternative, this is not a reason to remove but i am just pointing out alternatives)<br> |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
5) Not all expeditions had commanders, some were just a group of raiding parties. others were muslims who were just ambushed--] (]) 23:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
#List of expeditions of Muhammed: |
|
|
|
}} |
|
I have reasons to believe that the article's info. is false and biased. Most references are unreliable sources. Zakat isn't a tax. Muslims are forbidden from attacking Women,Children,priests and the disabled. I took a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/Occupation_of_Mecca and found that the casualties provided by the article " List of expeditions of Muhammed " don't match with the "Occupation of Mecca" article. the Last battle "Expedition of usama bin zayed" has written on it" Local population "slaughtered" by Muslims, "destroying, burning and taking as many captives as they could" according to Moshe Gil of Cambridge University" Muslims don't slaughter because as I said before, Muslims are forbidden from attacking Women,children,priests,and the disabled. "The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)". Quran 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”. I will provide more information if requested. Quran.com is my reference. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page == |
|
|
|
|
|
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. |
|
|
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. |
|
|
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the ]. |
|
|
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the ]. |
|
|
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the ]. |
|
|
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. |
|
|
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. |
|
|
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
*<nowiki>http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=173&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2</nowiki> |
|
|
*:''Triggered by <code>\baltafsir\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist'' |
|
|
*<nowiki>http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=73&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2</nowiki> |
|
|
*:''Triggered by <code>\baltafsir\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist'' |
|
|
|
|
|
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info. |
|
|
|
|
|
From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 20:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Multiple issues == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article recreates the same material of another article that was twice deleted: "List of killings of Muhammad" (see deletion discussions, ). Many of the issues mentioned in the previous discussions apply here as well (mainly poor and misrepresented sources). Also the creator of both articles, Misconception2, has a long history of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry in the Muhammad topic area. I wouldn't trust his summary of primary/secondary sources. I took a brief look at this article and noticed that the "reason" column lacks context and relies on primary sources. We don't usually present similar information in a list form. The primary sources are also problematic. We should avoid turning what is said to be alleged, disputed, rumored in the primary sources into fact. I suggest we reduce this article to a simple list of expeditions, and leave the complex/disputed information to individual battle pages. <b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 14:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is false. Those 2 articles are completely different--] (]) 05:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{re|Wiqi55}} When I stumbled on this article, I thought I’ve seen a similar list and was confident that it was deleted a long time ago. Turns out, this user made cosmetic changes to the original article to be able to sneak it in. It remains a massive list of purposeful distortions that I don’t know where to start, but consider the following description for the demise of Banu Qurayza: |
|
|
::Attack Banu Qurayza because according to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by the angel Gabriel. Al-Waqidi claims Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Stillman and Watt deny the authenticity of al-Waqidi. Al-Waqidi has been frequently criticized by Muslim writers, who claim that he is unreliable. |
|
|
:At this point, I’m not sure if it makes more sense to invest time correcting the information here or to simply wipe it all out and start over. Including {{ping| CounterTime}} and {{ping|Eperoton}} who are knowledgeable in Islamic history. ] (]) 18:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|Al-Andalusi}} I generally agree with your points and those of {{ping|Wiqi55}}, I just want to add an important comment: Per ], the authenticity of reports about prophetic events should be mentioned when such sources are relied upon. However none of that is respected in this particular article, in point of fact, we have an outright violation of that policy that exceeded all of my expectations. Let's take the example you gave, it references al-Waqidi's ''Maghāzī''. However, he is unreliable, Ibn Hanbal denounced him as a liar, and according to al-Ghunaimi, al-Waqidi is considered as one of "the most famous four, among the many, fabricators of hadith". (WAR IN ISLAMIC LAW: JUSTIFICATIONS AND REGULATIONS By Ahmed Mohsen Al-Dawoody, p. 23.) Many references are also dubious, being entirely unspecific, without even mentioning the abundant ]. 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
::: {{re|Al-Andalusi|CounterTime}} I think we could potentially have a timeline article about Muhammad's military campaigns along the lines of ] and ], although, as others have pointed out, the problems of historicity are of an entirely different nature. Modern historians disagree with each other about whether these events even happened, let alone on how to interpret their motivations. They also disagree with traditional Islamic scholars, who further disagree among themselves. At a minimum, I would suggest the following steps to address the most serious problems with the current article: |
|
|
:::# Delete the columns "Muhammad's order and reason for expedition" and "Casualties description", which have too many sourcing problems and just don't make sense here. If a reader wants to know more about the battle, they'll go to the corresponding article and read the historical analysis that should be given there. |
|
|
:::# Delete any rows for which no RSs are given (meaning modern mainstream historians and not primary sources, Mubarakpuri or Muir). |
|
|
:::# Delete rows like "Assassination of Abu Afak" which don't belong in a list of battles or even "expeditions". |
|
|
:::# Add a column called "Historicity", where we can indicate how the authenticity of the reports is judged by modern historians and Islamic tradition. |
|
|
::: ] (]) 20:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{ping|Eperoton}} One question about the fourth step, what about cases in which we can't possibly analyze the authenticity? |
|
|
::::20:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|CounterTime}} It's not our job to analyze it, but you probably meant something else. Could you clarify your question? ] (]) 21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{ping|Eperoton}} For example, let's say we have an account in Ibn Sa'd's ''Tabaqat'', how do we go about finding the authenticity? (of course, it's not '''us''' who are going to analyze it, since that would constitute ], instead we should find out RSs that discuss the authenticity, but what to do in cases in which we can't find an RS that discuss that?) |
|
|
::::::21:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
:::::::{{ping|CounterTime}} If an event isn't discussed in any RSs, it shouldn't be on this list. Actually, on second thought, perhaps we don't need that column. For events whose historicity is accepted by some but not others, the details can be left to the appropriate article. ] (]) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::{{ping|Eperoton}} Another thing, this article is about "expeditions of Muhammad", so it should naturally only include ''ghazawat'' in which Muhammad participated in, however the current list contains "expeditions which he ordered but did not take part" (73 in number). Should they be included in the list? 22:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
:::::::::{{ping|CounterTime}} I'm not sure, but the current title doesn't fit the current content well. Either the article should be renamed to something like "List of Muslim expeditions under Muhammad" or the expeditions in which he didn't take part should be removed. ] (]) 22:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
{{ping|Wiqi55}}, {{ping|Al-Andalusi}}, do you agree with the suggestions made by {{u|Eperoton}}? |
|
|
12:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
:{{ping|Wiqi55}} BTW I agree with your assessment that some citations are completely misleading, here's an example: |
|
|
::::''Muḥammad Ibn ʻAbd al-Wahhāb, Mukhtaṣar zād al-maʻād, p. 345.'' |
|
|
:However when we find that in page 345 we only have a table of contents, and nothing of it supports what was found in the article. |
|
|
:12:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
{{od}}Thanks ], ], ], and ]. It seems the issues with this article goes far beyond what is mentioned here, and stems off into most of the articles themselves. The user, Misconceptions2 has a history of supporting biased and non-neutral sources, which are inherently non-academic, violate a multitude of WP's policies surrounding neutrality, and are inaccurate representations of the sources indicated. I would recommend a thorough analysis of the articles in the list themselves as well. I also think that the time and effort CounterTime put into ridding the article of it's inherent flaws should not go to waste. ] (]) 08:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== False data added by SpyBueto removed == |
|
|
|
|
|
The source: "Gabriel, Richard A. (2008), Muhammad, Islam's first great general, University of Oklahoma Press, p. 73, ISBN 978-0-8061-3860-2" |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
Does not say: |
|
|
"The Meccans had sold property Muslims left behind after the Hijra and invested it in the caravans" |
|
|
His edit therefore has been reverted. Find a reliable source that says that Muslim property was stolen and sold, and that the purpose of the raid was to take back stolen property, before adding back these comments. |
|
|
--] (]) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
== Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias == |
|
|
|
|
|
*See before and after , article went from 110kb to 30kb : |
|
|
|
|
|
<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
*This is a controversial Topic on Islam. I feel the decision to delete data on this topic by 3 people: ], ], ] should be looked at again. This is because I worry there maybe a conflict of interest since they are Muslim and the article is about their religion. |
|
|
*I worry because the decision to remove the data was made entirely by the above 3 people ALONE and since all 3 are Muslims there is possible bias? |
|
|
*The article had a list of 100 battles of Muhammad. They changed it so it has about 20. What happened to the other 80. Are they not relevant? |
|
|
*'''I want to have this decision looked at again right here. Whether so much data should have been removed with the input of the wider community this time? A controversial article like this warrants it, instead of a discussion amongst a small demographic. I feel the original discussion could only have gone 1 way.''' --] (]) 05:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
--] (]) 04:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Not a proper redirect == |
|
: {{re|Misconceptions2}} The changes were made based on a consensus achieved in the section "Multiple issues" above. You are certainly welcome to join the debate and pursue ]. Please start by addressing the policy issues raised in that discussion. Thanks. ] (]) 10:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest removing the redirect from “Caravan Raids” as Prophet Muhammad’s military career was not composed of caravan raids as this link suggests. It is a gross misrepresentation of countless successful battles in Islamic history. ] (]) 04:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: {{ping|Misconceptions2}} Please read the previous discussion and the consensus reached therein, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Multiple_issues |
|
|
:: If you have any objections to any point there please discuss it in that particular thread. We'll make changes after reaching a consensus. But in the time being, we'll simple get back to the previous version. |
|
|
:: Regards, |
|
|
:: 20:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
:::Cant you see as of RIGHT now there is no consensus. This will turn into an edit war the way its going. I have invited many people who edited this article to comment here. I hope it does not turn into a big edit war.--] (]) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] We can't have a blank article. Alternative? ] ] ] 04:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::{{ping|Misconceptions2}} You didn't question, object or address anything from this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Multiple_issues so we can't even speak of there being a consensus (in which you're involved) or not. Please discuss there. I also hope that this wont turn into an edit war. 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)] (]) |
|
|
|
::Alright, makes sense. Can we not delete the article then? It can’t refer to any particular event anyway. Any other suggestions? ] (]) 06:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] Perhaps create a draft about what caravan raids are (do it ]) and submit it through articles for creation? ] ] ] 07:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Great idea. Thank you! ] (]) 07:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
I suggest removing the redirect from “Caravan Raids” as Prophet Muhammad’s military career was not composed of caravan raids as this link suggests. It is a gross misrepresentation of countless successful battles in Islamic history. Wikimicky1 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met