Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yuber (talk | contribs) at 02:21, 3 June 2005 (→More problems with the article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Totally POV

Sentences like "Muhammad's delight in their death" are very POV. Not to mention there is no mention here of the veracity of the sources considering most Hadith were written centuries after the events happened.Yuber 22:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The sentence has been fixed. Shahih Bukhari is considered by most Muslims to be the most reliable collection of hadith. Any other issues? Jayjg 13:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Bukhari sid that only the Warriors were killed, a number far less than 900. Read this and this. This entire article relies on Ishaq's story of events, a man who the 'imam of the imams' described as "reckless", indeed Malik referred to him as "a liar", "an impostor" and one "who transmits his stories from the Jews". Not the greatest of sources, you will agree... actually you won't agree, because it fits your agenda to assume otherwise. --Irishpunktom\ 15:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Please read User:Jmabel's comments, and please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg 17:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to take a look at this, but it's a topic I know almost nothing about, so my only comments will be process-oriented.

Irishpunktom: Your "actually you won't agree" is totally uncalled for, and approaches the level of an ad hominem attack. I see nothing that Jayjg has done on this article (or, really, any other article) that indicates bad faith. He and I are not particularly similar in our politics, but our subject-matter interests overlap, so I've found myself working with him on a number of articles. He's generally a pretty cooperative editor. Does he tend, when starting articles, to work from sources close to his own views? Yes. Sure. Almost all of us do: we almost all (except maybe Cberlet!) spend more time reading authors we tend to agree with than those we don't. Has he occasionally been reluctant to accept certain citations by people he disagrees with? Yes, occasionally, though those have tended to be unusual citations, e.g. self-published eyewitness accounts, which I am more inclined to credit than he is, but where I can certainly see how they at least rub up against Misplaced Pages's policy against original research.

There is no rule against editors having political views, and no rule against editors having political views different from one's own. There is a rule against bad-faith edits (but I see no evidence of that: if you think that is happening, you might want to raise the issue explicitly, and possibly start an RfC) and there is a rule against personal attacks (and, on that basis, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric).

In any event, when multiple, conflicting, plausible, contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous sources exist for historical events, the conflicting versions should almost always both be mentioned in the article, each with an indication of its source. If there are arguments why one version should be considered more plausible than the other, that should typically be mentioned, too. The article need not—in this case, I suspect, cannot—present a single version of events as Truth, but it can truthfully present what the conflicting sources each say, and what factors might be reasonably weighed in evaluating those sources. (On the other hand, if there is real consensus among historians that one version is considered authoritative, or if it can be shown that only historians of a particular political affiliation hold with one of the views, that should be covered, as well.) -- Jmabel | Talk 17:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jmabel. As a point of reference, I will simply point out that I have made exactly one edit to this page, which was to NPOV a sentence objected to above, and fix some minor format issues: Jayjg 17:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It's Not a Personal Attack, it's a simple statement based on fact. Jayjg has his agenda to push, which he does frequently, and repeatedly refuses to accept sources that dispute this agenda. This is evident from a large amount of edits he has made. It's also evident that he has been stalking Yuber (Amoung Others), reverting his edits without care for their content. It's also evident that when he is outnumbered in regard to any edit he calls in Guy Montag, Humus sapiens, etc. Why are these people, of all the thousands of wikipedian editors, asked for? The obvious answer is that they have the same agenda. At least Guy Montag is honest about it, his user page stating "I am primarily here to represent the nationalist right wing in Israel".

Again, that was not a personal attack, it was a simple statement based on many previous examples. --Irishpunktom\

Please re-read the No personal attacks policy; you are engaging in personal attacks, even if you mistakenly believe your statements to be factual. Personal attacks are against policy; please use the Talk: pages for the purpose they are intended, which is to discuss article content, not attack other editors. Jayjg 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, why did you post what you did on the Al-Andalus talk page is that is what you truely believe? --Irishpunktom\ 11:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Arab?

The categorizing of them as Arab doesn't make sense. If we go by the genealogical definition of Arab that was prevalent during those times, then they are descendants of Abraham. If descendants of Abraham follow Judaism, that makes them Jews.Yuber 23:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

If they were an Arab tribe that converted to Judaism, they'd be Arab, and it's not clear to me that the "genealogical definition of Arab" you refer to was prevalent in those times. Jayjg 09:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for fact dispute?

Does anyone actually want to discuss the reasons for the {{totally disputed}} ? --Irishpunktom\ 10:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I am up for it. But we have our hands full now. You list your objections and I'll see what I can do.

Guy Montag 11:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right well, I didn't put the {{totally disputed}} there, Yuber did, so he might have some other reasons, But from my own knowledge...

• Banu Qurayza was a Jewish tribe of ancient Arabia - Can you define Ancient, becuse I really don't think they were, also unsure about the Gramma'

Ancient as in before Saudi Arabia.

I don't believe that qualifies as ancient --Irishpunktom\

Guy Montag 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The tribe was wiped out during Muhammad's consolidation of power over the city of Medina - Thats simply incorrect, Ibn Ishaq, the primary source for this entire article, has several recorded dealings with members of the Banu (Bani) Qurayza, and that was over 150 years later.

There is also the PBS source. It confirms it. Guy Montag 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The PBS piece is sourceless, however the source for the used by this Article tat of Ibn Ishaq's "Life of Gods Messenger", or Sirat Rasul Allah is also the source I am using to debunk the Myth. Roughly 150 Years after the event, Ibn Ishaq is speaking with members of the Banu Qurayza (Bani Qurayzi). How is that possible if they had been wiped out a century earlier? --Irishpunktom\

• Believing Abu Sufyan would win, the tribe reluctently joined them - POV problem, their reluctance is Disputed, I'd rather it just said "the tribe joined them".

But that wouldnt be correct. The tribe was stuck in a rut. They were forced

"The Banu Qurayza were hesitant to join the Meccan alliance, but when a substantial Meccan army arrived, they agreed."

Guy Montag 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That does not say how reluctant they were when the armies of the Meccan's arrived, which is where the contention is, skillfully avoided by PBS, but presented in one sides POV in this article. --Irishpunktom\

• Following the battle, Muhammad turned on his reluctant allies among the Banu Qurayza - Similar POV problem.

See above.

Guy Montag 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Furthermore, they were former allies who had broken a treaty, and committed Treason.

• It had been rumored that the Qurayza were going to break the treaty and allow the Meccans to enter Medina through their part of the city's fordifications. - Not that I disagree, but Cite sources ?

The sources are in the article below. Also supported by PBS article. Guy Montag 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No there is not. It's nowhere. The PBS article is unsourced, and I don't know where 'Rumours' came from. Whats missing too is that the Banu Qurayza physically attacked members of Muhammads army to divert attention from the Front. --Irishpunktom\

• Ibn Mu'adh was well-known as a man who hated Jews in general and the Banu Qurayza in particular. - POV problem again, you are relying on a Book written over 100 years after the death of the man, and a particularly dogy one at that.

Do you have a better source that contravenes what is said? If not then we only have the information to work off that is given.Guy Montag 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, firstly, where is the Source for that. The PBS article you seem to like so much states that he was an ally of thiers. --Irishpunktom\

• He ordered that the adult male population of the tribe, some 700-900 individuals, be beheaded. Ibn Ishaq describes the massacre as follows - Thats disputed, and is presented ina POV way, indeed the following quote, that of the Hadith of Bukhari tells a significantly different tale I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners. Bukhari's version is much similar to that of other similar events during the reign of Muhammad, and Bukhari, as Jayjg highlights, "is considered by most Muslims to be the most reliable collection of hadith".

Ok, but the PBS source, one that is favorable to the Muslim side of the story agrees. Add you r information here and maybe we can find a solution.

Guy Montag

I'm not conteding the PBS article, and I'm sure it was written in good Faith, but the Bukhari and Surat disagree, and clearly disagree, and as Jayjg points out, Bukhari is the Most important source. This article while featuring both passages does not highlight that Bukhari's version is more authorative, that they were written over 100 years later, and that Bukhari tells a different tale. Bukhari's version of Events is the presents a story that is the same as other similar events, where as Ibn Ishaqs story presents a Horrific story of death and mass salughter, similar to stories from the Book of Joshua, out of step with the Majority of the Sirat and Hadiths. --Irishpunktom\

There is also the POV, anti-Islamic (Islamopobic?) way it is presented, and perhaps Yuber has other issues too. --Irishpunktom\ 14:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is an article written by one person, so it is up to us to make it conform to wiki standards. Thats why we need to work on it. Guy Montag 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, But I'll wait for Yuber to Highlight his problems with it too. --Irishpunktom\ 11:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

How about you post the version you want in talk and together we can edit it and construct a version that fits wiki standards?

Guy Montag 23:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More problems with the article

The article makes use of several contradictory sources and seems to only cite from sources certain passages that support the anti-Muslim pro-Banu Qurayza view. Firstly, I think we ought to mention the fact that these sources were written by single authors centuries after the event took place. The hadith of Bukhari may very well be respected among hadith-following Muslims, but its accuracy as a historical source needs to be mentioned. This is just one of the first things I see wrong with the article, I will add more later.Yuber 00:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)