Talk:List of expeditions of Muhammad/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Some notes

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily 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 request page for whitelisting. 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 blacklist request page. 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 request page on meta. 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:

  • http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=173&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
    Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=73&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
    Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:35, 8 December 2013 (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"
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. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverted new column about commander on muslim side

i have reverted a column about the commander on the muslim side because:
1) sometimes there was more than 1 commander
2) only the sariyyah had sifferent commanders, the ghzawah all had muhammad as the commander
3) the data wasnt referenced, lets be consistant, if were gonna add somethign add refs
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)
5) Not all expeditions had commanders, some were just a group of raiding parties. others were muslims who were just ambushed--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. 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/wiki/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[338]" 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.41.219.126 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Help

Muslms cannot be trusted, I tried to revert the, but it is not work. Entire column just vanished. What kind of name is Andalusi, seems ISsupporter--103.41.212.74 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating the benefits of semi-protection. Eperoton (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article recreates the same material of another article that was twice deleted: "List of killings of Muhammad" (see deletion discussions, [1] [2]). 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. Wiqi(55) 14:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is false. Those 2 articles are completely different--Misconceptions2 (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@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 @CounterTime: and @Eperoton: who are knowledgeable in Islamic history. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Al-Andalusi: I generally agree with your points and those of @Wiqi55:, I just want to add an important comment: Per WP:MOS/Islam, 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 WP:SYNTHESIS. 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@Al-Andalusi and CounterTime: I think we could potentially have a timeline article about Muhammad's military campaigns along the lines of List of Napoleonic battles and List of World War I battles, 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:
  1. 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.
  2. Delete any rows for which no RSs are given (meaning modern mainstream historians and not primary sources, Mubarakpuri or Muir).
  3. Delete rows like "Assassination of Abu Afak" which don't belong in a list of battles or even "expeditions".
  4. Add a column called "Historicity", where we can indicate how the authenticity of the reports is judged by modern historians and Islamic tradition.
Eperoton (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@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)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: It's not our job to analyze it, but you probably meant something else. Could you clarify your question? Eperoton (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@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 WP:SYNTHESIS, 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)CounterTime (talk)
@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. Eperoton (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@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)CounterTime (talk)
@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. Eperoton (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wiqi55:, @Al-Andalusi:, do you agree with the suggestions made by Eperoton? 12:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@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 looking at the meant book 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)CounterTime (talk)

Thanks user:CounterTime, user:Wiqi55, user:Eperoton, and User:Al-Andalusi. 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. Xtremedood (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias

  • See before and after , article went from 110kb to 30kb :

What it used to be like
What it was changed to by group of Muslims

  • This is a controversial Topic on Islam. I feel the decision to delete data on this topic by 3 people: user:Eperoton, User:Al-Andalusi, User:CounterTime 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. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@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 WP:DR. Please start by addressing the policy issues raised in that discussion. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: Please read the previous discussion and the consensus reached therein, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)CounterTime (talk)
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.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: You didn't question, object or address anything from this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)CounterTime (talk)

Summary as of 14-03-2016

@CounterTime, So far you have 3 people against mass changes you made:

I dont know how many people you have who are FOR the changes as you went ahead and made changes which am not even sure user:Al-Andalusi, user:Eperoton agree with. You went above and beyond. So you hardly have a consensus now.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: Changes are made only when consensus is made, simple. I only edited this page only after discussing here and coming into a common agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Multiple_issues
If you want to make changes please discuss there. Simple reverts that do not even mention an edit summary are simply examples of edit warring rather than attempts at making constructive criticism, they aren't argument either as you make it look like.
AGAIN PLEASE DISCUSS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Multiple_issues
Thanks in advance.
00:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@Misconceptions2: To elaborate on CounterTime's comment, note that WP:DR is achieved by discussion rather than counting votes. So far, neither you nor the other two editors who have attempted to reinsert the disputed content have addressed the substance of objections in the "Multiple issues" section above. I'm not yet touching the article because I'm interpreting WP:BRD in favor of your long-standing version despite the lapse of time since CounterTime's edits, but remember that WP:ONUS for achieving consensus rests with the party seeking inclusion of disputed content. I propose to you, Sajithgayashan and Edward321 to stop edit warring and start advancing substantive arguments. Eperoton (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Misconceptions2's only argument is that Muslims should not be able to write on such articles, because they are Muslims. This is a ridiculous personal attack, which shows his bias and animosity to this group of people. This is clearly in violation of WP:PA. In reality, the bias comes from Misconceptions2 himself, whose works are strongly correlated with content from anti-Islamic hate sites like WikiIslam.net [3], [4]. CounterTime was correct in removing the irrelevant materials, which are not related to the article. Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ military life should be the focus of such an article, not the campaigns of others. Also, the articles published by Misconceptions2, which are numerous, are biased, violates WP:NPOV, often utilizes misattributed sources, are often primary sources, constitute original research, and are non-academic. Many of these materials resemble previously deleted articles, as mentioned above by Wiqi55. The removal of these materials was therefore a much needed step in closer adherance to WP's policies. Xtremedood (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Why Muslim delete so much article. What is problem. I agree with "I'm interpreting WP:BRD in favor of your long-standing version despite the lapse of time ", I agree same.--Sajithgayashan (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Who is this Sajithgayashan who is speaking in broken English ? Sounds like a sockpuppet for someone Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
If your trying to say his my sock then your wrong. Just because I used socks in the past does not mean I always will. But its my fault, that you think this. A convict will always be a convict till the day he dies. And I have been convicted of using socks. I think there is another user here using socks but I wont say which ones I suspect are the socks without REASONABLE certainty. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I never said he was your sockpuppet, it looks like he is having an attitude and needs to be controlled. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Alexis Ivanov: It's pretty suspicious that all these disputes began only after the re-coming of Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs), and before his absence no one actually raised any objection. Of course I'm not going to draw raw conclusions from that but it's just weird and suspicious-to say the least. 17:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
You are right. They did aand? I am the ones who raised the objecticions and highlighted this at ANI and COI--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: "They did aand?" I left the conclusion to be drawn by the typical reader. 17:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Proposal: Changes until no consensus? Rubbish

Clearly there was no consensus in first place. You ended discussion without input of other demographics. In fact no one else even inputted to the original discussion other than muslims. So it was only gonna go one way. I will argue there was no consensus in first place and furthermore as the old version of this article was nominated for afd thats the one that should stay there until its over and should stay there until a consensus is reached here as agreed by me, sajith, and eperton. Furthermore I think user:142.105.159.60 and user:Edward321 agree with the old version being there thats why they made the reverts. So thats 5.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: A consensus was reached before your re-apparition. If you want to change the new consensus you'd have to first make discussions in the talk page before making any edit. Simple. For the moment we're still waiting for your input here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Multiple_issues
17:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Because Misconceptions2 joined the discussion belatedly, there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to how WP:BRD should be interpreted here, i.e., which changes are the bold edits and which are the reverts. Regardless of this, the long-term state of the article is subject to WP:ONUS. The editors supporting inclusion of the disputed content should be taking the initiative in building consensus, and so far they seem strangely reluctant even to start addressing the raised objections. Eperoton (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've fully protected for 2 days given we have a number of confirmed users engaging in edit warring. When the protection expires blocks may be in order for those who prove unable to work collaboratively — MusikAnimal talk 17:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For the love of God

@Xtremedood: Control this failed musician DJ SG Gayashan who has another sockpuppet account called Sajithgayashan and SG Gayashan, he failed to promote his failed career on Wikipedia Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

One of CounterTimes reason for deletion and why he is unhappy with article

CounterTime states a reason for why this article should not be deleted and why he is not happy with it is because some of the rows are missing secondary sources. he said "4, 10, 11, 55, 71, ...etc" are missing secondary sources, in Afd page. If that is the case then this is a totally fixable problem. All we have to do is get the secondary sources from the relevant page and put them on this page. E.g get the secondary soruces of 51 from here: Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam) . This applies to the rest he mentioned. Proposal: Please list any rows missing secondary sources here and I shall add them all. Its very easy since they are all in the article pages .--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: My primary reason for the deletion of the article is that it constitutes synthesis (see WP:SYNTHESIS). My primary reason for the lack of quality of the article is that the RSs cited do not speak about the authenticity, hence violating WP:MOS/Hadith. The other reason being that saraya are mostly non military, so what are they doing in a military expeditions article?
And also, PLEASE stop starting several new sections, while ignoring and/or choosing to refrain from ongoing discussions. This is very disruptive and not an effective way of trying to solve the issues.
10:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
If you have an RS issue the solution is to to take it to the RS noticeboard. I disagree with your claims about it not being RS so we would not be able to solve it here. What is your next concern. Please mention all text or rows here which are problematic and why?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2:
I'm not having an RS issue. My primary reason for the deletion of the article is that it constitutes synthesis (see WP:SYNTHESIS). My primary reason for the lack of quality of the article is that the RSs cited do not speak about the authenticity, hence violating WP:MOS/Hadith. The other reason being that saraya are mostly non military, so what are they doing in a military expeditions article?
17:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Can anyone revert the edit by 103.55.147.30, since his edit wasn't based on a consensus reached on the talk page or anything similar? 16:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

There was no consensus in the first place. Anyone can see that because the arguments are still on going back on forth. I am for the long-standing version version ()the current one) being on there, it has been there for 2 years+ until a few peopel decided otherwise. Its also needed for the afd.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why dont we do a vote on which version should be kept? The longstanding version or the highly redacted version.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: Once again, WP consensus is based not on votes, but on strength of the arguments and policy compliance. All interested editors have just had an extensive policy-based discussion that yielded a consensus on the long-term form of the article in the "Proposal" section. Your decision to sit out the discussion doesn't invalidate the resulting consensus. If you have a problem with it, I invite you once again to join the discussion and address the policy and content issues debated there. Otherwise, you'll have to create a new consensus for any other changes you'll want to make. Eperoton (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is essentially a content dispute? So why dont we dispute the content? Not once did we dispute issues with references or content. Which content should not be here and why? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Many people agree the old verison should stay. This is why many edit war. Others also not agree. But with this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&oldid=710877529 no muslim want to debate what is problem with article. Now all muslim come to debate? Keep current version, is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ SG Gayashan (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2:
(1) No, the previous version was the one that was in force before your return. The current discussion in the talk is about ameliorating that version.
(2) Why don't you instead address the arguments outlined here? (As I asked you time and time again to do, but you still refuse to discuss there)
(3) Making a "vote" system opens the door for socks, and as the edit history of this article shows, there are many socks constantly making reverts without making any type of constructive discussion in the talk.
17:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Which accounts are socks?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: I don't think that the term 'sock' was the correct technical term, just meant in general accounts that do not make any attempts at building constructive discussion.
17:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Why dont we make an effort to discuss the content right now. We should have 7 days of peace and no edit warring? Tell me which reference of text written here should be removed?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: There are now many pages of policy-based debate about references and content on this TP. Several other editors have been taking part in the debate while you have been steadfastly ignoring it despite many invitations to participate, and now you're even refusing to acknowledge that it occurred. Enough. Go take part in those discussions or stop wasting people's time with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Eperoton (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok give 1 example here right now of a piece of text that should be removed and why? Just 1.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: All the material that doesn't appear in lists of expeditions found in RSs should be removed. That includes several rows and two of the columns in the older version. For more detail, see the Proposal section above. Eperoton (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Please give examples of which text should be removed and does not appear in reliable source. No we are getting somewhere. Lets continue this back and forth of which content here is at dispute. Back to my point. Please give an example of some text that should be removed because it is not backed up by RS?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to think that we're getting somewhere, except that you're asking me to repeat the exact same arguments I've already made to you in the Proposal section above and which you have left without response. If I copy and paste them here, will you stop engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Eperoton (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I am waiting for you to copy and paste a line of text which should not be here because it is from an unreliable source? is that so hard? Why do we go in circles? please just do this--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I agree with Misconceptions2 please post here (not a link to see something) text in which you are in disagreement with, also I think you've made it clear that you are relying on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I think you can stop posting that link. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2 and Mlpearc: You are still evading Eperoton's point, but in any case, to answer your specific question, first please see our previous discussion: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Multiple_issues and the more recent one: (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad#Proposal
As an example; line number 71=Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam), the source is Tabaqat ibn sa'd which is WP:PRIMARY, not to mention issues of authenticity explained in discussion (1) and (2).
18:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
I'll recap the discussion above for the benefit of Mlpearc, who seems to be a legitimate newcomer. Our role is to reflect how RSs treat the subject of the article. For an article called "List of expeditions", we need to look at lists of expeditions found in RSs. As it happens, the single most prominent academic source on the subject, Watt's Muhammad at Medina, has a table under that exact name (see p. 339 here). Since no other such lists in RSs have come to light during this dispute, this should be our working model. A number of rows, which seem to be borrowed from lists found on anti-Islam websites, aren't found there. Neither is the entire "reason" column. I'm not going to paste them here. In fact, I'm not aware of any list of military events in RSs that attempt to compress historical analyses of why the events occurred into table cells. As several editors agree, this is a content fork that should properly be left to the articles themselves. Other examples on WP such as List of Napoleonic battles and List of World War I battles have also been pointed to. Treating a topic differently from the how it's treated in RSs requires justification and per WP:ONUS Misconceptions2 has been invited to provide one and build consensus for it. This is the last we've heard from them on this point. Eperoton (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not done: From a quick glance at this talk page it doesn't look like we are near to finding any kind of consensus about the issues here. Until there is a consensus about what to do, the article should stay protected on the current version. (See also m:The Wrong Version.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding to CounterTime (talk · contribs) about #71 Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam)

Your problem with this one is valid. Unfortuantely number 71 on this article only has a primary source. IN THAT CASE IT IS only number 71 you should have removed and not more than 70-80 rows like you did.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam) has secodnary soruces listed as: Atlas Al-sīrah Al-Nabawīyah" pg .218 and The Sealed Necter pg. 250 it was a simple matter of going in that page. Finding the secondary sources and adding it to this page. BOTH OF THESE SOURCES ARE MUSLIM SCHOLARS

  1. Secondary Source 1: Atlas Al-sīrah Al-Nabawīyah, pg. 218, Dr. Shawqi Abu Khalil, Darussalam Publishers
  2. Secondary Source 2: Hawarey, Dr. Mosab (2010). The Journey of Prophecy; Days of Peace and War (Arabic). Islamic Book Trust. ISBN 9789957051648. {{cite book}}: External link in |first= (help)Note: Book contains a list of battles of Muhammad in Arabic, English translation available here
  3. Secondary Source 3: The Sealed Nectar, pg. 250, Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, Darussalam Publishers. (archive)

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: "only number 71 you should have removed and not more than 70-80 rows like you did" -- I only responded to your question which asked for one.
By the way, per WP:MOS/Islam, do you have an RS which evaluates the authenticity of the narrations on "Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam)"? One is required to provide them.
20:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Where on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Hadith does it say that every hadith has to be evaluated? About the hadiths mentioned on the article:

Ibn Abbas reported that some Muslims met a person with a small flock of sheep. He said: As-Salam-o-'Alaikum. They caught hold of him and killed him and took possession of his flock. Then this verse was revealed:" He who meets you and extends you salutations (assalamu alaikum), don't say: You are not a Muslim" (iv. 94). Ibn 'Abbas, however, recited the word as-Salam instead of" as-Salam".Sahih Muslim, 43:7176

Theres tons of books which provide commentary on hadith: https://nmusba.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/sahih-muslim-bi-sharh-li-imam-an-nawawi-18-volumes-in-10-books/ Generally Muslims cosndier Sahih Bukhari and Muslim as reliable, the other 4 of the 6 "great" hadith collections are also generally considered reliable. The Muslim website Sunnah.com grades every SINGLE hadith in the 6 collections. Get the authenticty from there. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: The linked article makes it explicit: Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith.
I'm talking about the authenticity of the reports on "Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam)" that are found in Ibn Sa'd's tabaqat for instance, and not some random hadith that has no relevance here.
"Generally Muslims cosndier Sahih Bukhari and Muslim as reliable, theo ther for 6 "great" hadith collections are also generally considered reliable" -- I didn't state otherwise, if you check the edit summary of the Hadith article you'll see that I actually included things which supported that, but how does that relate to the authenticity of "reports on "Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam)" that are found in Ibn Sa'd's tabaqat for instance"?
20:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Ibn Sa'd is Maghazi not hadith. It is not an article dedicated entirely to a hadith like: Hadith of the pond of Khumm. It is not an articled dedicated to hadith like that is. If you want the authenticity of Ibn Sa'd book then you must ask for the authenticity of every book thats used as a source. Its like saying if I wanna use the Sealed Nectar book then I must also have another source mentioning the authenticity of the text written there. That would be unreasonable and that certainly is not the spirit behind MOS/ISLAM requirement of mentioning the "GRADE" of a hadith, that would be an overburden. Do not interpret it how you want to. Ibn Sa';d does not layout his stories like the hadith do. Thats why it does not have a NUMBERING system like hadith. Also you say "evaluation", that word is wrong, it is just the "grade" that is needed and it mentions the different grades in MOS/SILAM write after "Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith. The four general types of hadith reliability are:". It then goes onto mention the grades such as Sahih and Hassan. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: (quotes are highlighted)
Ibn Sa'd is Maghazi not hadith.
This is utterly false. Ibn Sa'd's tabaqat belongs to the genre of tarikh (history), it includes parts on Maghazi and saraya, but, these are formulated as hadiths, i.e. they are composed of a chain of transmission (isnad) and a matn, they are thus subject to traditionalist evaluations with regards to the science of hadith, in the words of Watt,

Ibn Ishaq, working in the second quarter of the second Islamic century (middle of the eighth century A.D.), usually gives his authorities, but not always a complete chain,and he does not always repeat the words of the authority verbatim. Al-Waqidi, half a century later, is similar in method, but his secretary and follower, Ibn Sa'd, some twenty years younger, always attempts to quote exactly and to give a complete chain of authorities.

— Muhammad at Medina, p. 338.
See also: Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. “Maghazi and the Muhaddithun: Reconsidering the Treatment of ‘Historical’ Materials in Early Collections of Hadith”,International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, Feb. 1996, pp.1-18.
Its like saying if I wanna use the Sealed Nectar book then I must also have another source mentioning the authenticity of the text written there.
The Sealed Nectar is an secondary source, unlike Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat, which is WP:PRIMARY.
And even if the Sealed Nectar mentions an event, despite being a secondary source, if it doesn't mention explicitly the authenticity, then it runs contrary to WP:MOS/Hadith.
Regards,
21:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Show me 1 reliable source thats claims Ibn Sa'd is hadith and I will show you 10 that say he is "Maghazi"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: Again you're twisting my points. I explicitly said that Ibn Sa'd belongs to the genre of tarikh (history) it includes parts on Maghazi and saraya, but, these are formulated as hadiths, i.e. they are composed of a chain of transmission (isnad) and a matn, as the quote of Montgomery Watt shows: "Ibn Sa'd, some twenty years younger, always attempts to quote exactly and to give a complete chain of authorities.".
21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Ibn Sa'd is not considered by ANY serious muslim scholar as a hadith author. MOST of his isnad just rely on his teacher al-Waqidi and end there. He says in his preface that "was was written here has just been passed onto me", something on those lines. He does not have isnad in the same sense as hadith.

Ibn Sa'd prefaces his accounts of the actual maghazi with a comprehensive list of his most important sponsors,142 and in it names al-Waqidl as his immediate and direct authority; Ru'aym ibn Yazld, who handed on to him the traditions

See: The earliest biographies of the prophet and their authors If you want you can mention in the articles who considers Ibn Sa'd reliable and who does not consider him relibable. Some of his stories consist of VARIOUS different quotes from different periods. It is not like hadith where it just has 1 quote that took place in a 1 minute. His are like stories with various different quotes from various different people at serious different times possible over a period of a month depending on time of mission. Hadith is like "The prophet said so and so", Maghazi is like "The prophet sent this man to this expedition...Quotes of the men involved in exception during morning...Quotes of men few days later...with a quote of Muhammad rarely put in there few days or months later after mission complete". Its basically history.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2:

Ibn Sa'd is not considered by ANY serious muslim scholar as a hadith author.

I didn't state otherwise, what I stated was, as in the words of Montgomery Watt, that "Ibn Sa'd, some twenty years younger, always attempts to quote exactly and to give a complete chain of authorities.", i.e. an isnad. (Muhammad at Medina, p. 338.)

MOST of his isnad just rely on his teacher al-Waqidi and end there.

(Assuming that what you just said is true-in point of fact it isn't) That doesn't sound good, he is considered as unreliable by the vast majority of Hadith scholars. For instance, 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". (Source: Ahmed al-Dawoody - War in Islamic Law, p. 23.). Hence, we conclude that narrations based on al-Waqidi should be deleted altogether, both from a primary source or an RS which isn't explicit on its authenticity. He does not have isnad in the same sense as hadith. But when it relates to Prophetic reports (which are either his spoken words, deeds, etc... and this includes Maghazi and Saraya) the isnad should be reliable, according to Hadith scholars. Hence, per WP:MOS/Islam the authenticity should be assessed.

If you want you can mention in the articles who considers Ibn Sa'd reliable and who does not consider him relibable.

Just because X is reliable does not mean that narration Y in the book Z of X is reliable. Each individual isnad should be scrutinized, hence even do Muslim Sunni Hadith scholars largely agree that Abu Dawud is reliable, does not entail that every one of the hadiths in his Sunan is authentic.

It is not like hadith where it just has 1 quote that does place in a certain minutes.

A Hadith is defined as: "a report describing the words, actions, or habits of the Prophet Muhammad." (Source: A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2009). Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Foundations of Islam). Oneworld Publications. p. 3. ISBN 978-1851686636.) Where in this definition does it say that hadiths should be restricted to "certain minutes"?

Hadith is like "The prophet said so and so", Believe it or not, Hadiths also include (by definition) the "...actions, or habits of the Prophet Muhammad.", hence, in Hadith collections such as the Sahih of Bukhari one can find entire chapters on Maghazi, see: Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. “Maghazi and the Muhaddithun: Reconsidering the Treatment of ‘Historical’ Materials in Early Collections of Hadith”,International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, Feb. 1996, pp.1-18.

I don't see where you're going with this argumentation, but the fact remains, the Maghazi/Saraya genre are reports on the actions of the Prophet Muhammad, hence a hadith (by def), and the historical reports in Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqat should be assessed in terms of their authenticity per requirement of WP:MOS/Islam. Simple. 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

You can mention that the primary soruce is unreliable according to so and so if you want. That much I will compromise. But Ibn Sa;'d is sometimes THE only source for some missions. He is widely used even by Muslims schoalrs like Mubrakpuri who do not have any other sources. Ibn Sa'd is extremely notable being the ONLY surviving source. It is not a fact that can be over looked simply because he maybe unreliable. By the way only about 18 articles rely on him and those that do have plenty of Muslim secondary sources who used him as a source e.g Haykal and Mubarakpuri.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2:
But Ibn Sa;'d is sometimes THE only source for some missions. He is widely used even by Muslims schoalrs like Mubrakpuri who do not have any other sources.
That's not an excuse, WP:MOS/Hadith is explicit, and how does that even relate to whether or not you should include the authenticity of each narration in the first place?
have plenty of Muslim secondary sources who used him as a source e.g Haykal and Mubarakpuri.
As I said earlier: And even if the Sealed Nectar mentions an event, despite being a secondary source, if it doesn't mention explicitly the authenticity, then it runs contrary to WP:MOS/Hadith.
Regards,
22:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Not it doesnt., Just because a secondary soruce uses him doesnt mean that secondary source cant be used. Also the secondary soruces dont actually say who there primary source is BUT it is clear that it is Ibn Sa'd if he is the only existing primary source then its the only rational deduction. The compromise I will make is that you can mention the authenticity if you want. I never minded that. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2:
Just because a secondary soruce uses him doesnt mean that secondary source cant be used
I didn't say that it can't be used, rather I argued that such a secondary source will fail WP:MOS/Hadith due to not mentioning the authenticity of the report mentioned there.
Also the secondary soruces ... the only rational deduction
Then that's another obstacle to using that source without violating WP:MOS/Hadith.
The compromise I will make is that you can mention the authenticity if you want
My basic position is that anything that fails WP:MOS/Hadith should be deleted altogether.
My other position is that the current list fails WP:SYNTHESIS in that it synthesizes material from multiple sources to make a list, without relying on an RS mentioning a list, as @Eperoton: suggested.
The other position is, of course, that Saraya should be deleted altogether, since they aren't military in nature, and since their authenticity is largely disputed.
Regards,
22:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@Misconceptions2:, we've discussed this "no hadith was cited" claim of yours back in 2011, and I pointed out the need for checking hadith sources (Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad#Hadith reliability). So this discussion is certainly not new to you and you are fully aware of the problems with your edits. The question is, why do you continue to behave and act like you are completely ignorant of this fact, and insist on wasting other editors' time with endless discussions that is ok to cite primary Maghazi sources? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Because it is ok to QUOTE (not use as reference) primary maghazi sources for the same reason as its ok to quote any book.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: And where exactly in this article are you doing that? Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: You missed (again) the point, which was that to quote primary maghazi saraya material one ought to provide the authenticity of each report per WP:MOS/Hadith, the thing that you failed to do & evade.
21:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
The Maghazi simply is not considered a hadith book. 99% of Maghazi in Ibn Sa'ds book start off with "The prophet sent so and so on an expedition", after that there is usually not even a mention of Muhammad any more in the rest of the text for that expedition."--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: Please stop repeating again and again half-baked arguments. I never claimed that Ibn Sa'd's tabaqat was a hadith book, rather I explicitly stated that it was a book of history (tarikh), but that it contained isnads for each narrative. See what I said earlier:

Ibn Sa'd's tabaqat belongs to the genre of tarikh (history), it includes parts on Maghazi and saraya, but, these are formulated as hadiths, i.e. they are composed of a chain of transmission (isnad) and a matn, they are thus subject to traditionalist evaluations with regards to the science of hadith, in the words of Watt,

Ibn Ishaq, working in the second quarter of the second Islamic century (middle of the eighth century A.D.), usually gives his authorities, but not always a complete chain,and he does not always repeat the words of the authority verbatim. Al-Waqidi, half a century later, is similar in method, but his secretary and follower, Ibn Sa'd, some twenty years younger, always attempts to quote exactly and to give a complete chain of authorities.

— Muhammad at Medina, p. 338.
See also: Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. “Maghazi and the Muhaddithun: Reconsidering the Treatment of ‘Historical’ Materials in Early Collections of Hadith”,International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, Feb. 1996, pp.1-18.
A Hadith is defined as: "a report describing the words, actions, or habits of the Prophet Muhammad." (Source: A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2009). Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Foundations of Islam). Oneworld Publications. p. 3. ISBN 978-1851686636.) Where in this definition does it say that hadiths should be restricted to "certain minutes"?
Hadith is like "The prophet said so and so",
Believe it or not, Hadiths also include (by definition) the "...actions, or habits of the Prophet Muhammad.", hence, in Hadith collections such as the Sahih of Bukhari one can find entire chapters on Maghazi, see: Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. “Maghazi and the Muhaddithun: Reconsidering the Treatment of ‘Historical’ Materials in Early Collections of Hadith”,International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, Feb. 1996, pp.1-18.
I don't see where you're going with this argumentation, but the fact remains, the Maghazi/Saraya genre are reports on the actions of the Prophet Muhammad, hence a hadith (by def), and the historical reports in Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqat should be assessed in terms of their authenticity per requirement of WP:MOS/Islam. Simple.

So, please stop repeating again and again the same wrong arguments. Regards, 21:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Responding to Eperoton about Lists

There are several Muslim soruces with a large list of Muhammad's expeditions. I mention them in the "Article for deletion" page. See these:
Source 1 which lists as a group

From Atlas Al-sīrah Al-Nabawīyah, pg. 218, Dr. Shawqi Abu Khalil, Darussalam Publishers

Source 2 which lists as a group

Excerpt from: Hawarey, Dr. Mosab (2010). The Journey of Prophecy; Days of Peace and War (Arabic). Islamic Book Trust. ISBN 9789957051648. {{cite book}}: External link in |first= (help)

Source 3 which lsits as a group, type Ghazwah

From the Maghazi of Ibn Sa'd

Source 4 which lists a group, ordered chronologically year by year, starting page 3 from saudi arabian government website

From the King Abdulaziz University

Finally there is no wikipedia policy against mentioning primary soruces or reasons in list. That is a matter of opinion. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: What is your point? No one is disputing that lists of expeditions exist in RSs. Only the last one of yours is a historical RS (a marginal one, but still), and the table there is even more compact than Watt's. Eperoton (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Table is not compact. The rest is on pg. 249 which is not part of the google books preview. Go buy the book if you wanna see the rest. Or check hawarey source which has more. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: No, the RS among your links is the economics article in the Saudi journal. WP history articles should rely on academic sources. Carefully chosen Islamic publications can be used to source traditional Islamic interpretations of events, but they don't meet WP:RS criteria for basic treatment of historical subjects. Eperoton (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Darussalam Publishers is the WORDS LARGEST islamic book publisher. It is therefore consider reliable an d oteable, especially since the authors are also academics. Hawarey and Shaqi are academics working at universities. By the way this is a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard, it is no reaosn to make a decision on your own and discoutn nad source and remove it before consulting them--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: The size of the publisher has nothing to do with reliability. Academic credentials of the authors are another story. According to his personal page, Hawarey is not a professional historian. Per WP:RS, please demonstrate the credentials of Shawqi Abu Khalil as a mainstream historian by pointing us to his peer-reviewed academic publications. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the correct hawarey: http://mohd.hawarey.org/en.html from the University of Damascus . We will just argue if we discuss what is and is not reliable even though these are all muslim sources from major publishers. This is a matter for the Reliable source noticeboard and will NOT ge resolved you. Furthermore it is not a clear cut reason to delete data as the question of reliability is contentious.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: No, the first Hawarey is the correct one. From the website: "This table is part of Dr. Mosa'b Hawarey's book". The other Hawarey has a different name. Per WP:ONUS, if you want to rely on a source from a non-academic publisher in a history article, it's your responsibility to establish its reliability, not the RS noticeboard's. Eperoton (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
See http://mohd.hawarey.org/kitab07.html click the image of the book, it says "Dr. Mohamed Mosaab Hawary" is the author on the image. The book is on the page of this hawarey http://mohd.hawarey.org/en.html (Mohammad Hawarey aka Dr Dr. Mohamed Mosaab Hawary) and not Mosab Hawarey. Tell someone who speaks arabic to translate this page for you: http://www.hawarey.org/images/rehla1.jpg --Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: The name Mos'ab is mentioned nowhere in the bio sketch. Anyway, even if the book was written by the other Hawary, where are his credentials as a historian? Eperoton (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The image here: http://www.hawarey.org/images/rehla1.jpg says "Dr. Mohamed Mosaab Hawary" is the author. We can get a 3rd party arabic speaking person to confirm that if you want? His credentials are mentioned here: http://mohd.hawarey.org/en.html (master of tafseer, he is a mufassir). He is an academic from the University of Damascus --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I can read the title. Being a specialist in Quranic interpretation does not establish reliability of his non-peer-reviewed publications in history. Really, Misconceptions2 please stop for a minute and think about what we should be doing here. Per WP:NPOV, we have to reflect RSs according to their prominence in their academic field. So, we should take the most influential references on the subject and make sure we reflect them with appropriate WP:WEIGHT. What you're trying to do is something entirely different and contrary to the spirit of this policy. You're dredging out any source you can find to support your design of the table. You're having trouble even demonstrating that the couple of sources you've managed to find meet the basic requirements as RSs, and it's simply absurd to suggest that they should be given comparable weight to Watt's book, which is still the principal academic reference on the subject. Eperoton (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I shall not argue about wether these 4 sources published by major publishers and academic authors is reliable or not any longer. Take it to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Some arguments are just not worth having. Lets move on to hte next content dispute, which other written text on here do you have an issue with?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: The first two can be considered as WP:RS, the third is WP:PRIMARY, I didn't look into more detail for the other one; But in any case does any of them mention the authenticity of reports on that event?
20:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
I can't say I'm surprised that Misconceptions2 wants to "move on" again without addressing policy-based arguments. In the larger scheme of things, debating this article has been a tremendous time sink and the debate just doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I think I will take this occasion to WP:DISENGAGE. Eperoton (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: I don't think that leaving someone violate WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, ...etc and other policies constitutes a proper application of WP:DISENGAGE etiquette.
18:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: It is. I think there have been too many contradictory viewpoints here and not enough cooperative spirit to reach a consensus. I would appreciate a ping if there's an escalation of WP:DR, though. Eperoton (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of Problems identified with article that I agree to fix

1. #71 on list called Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam) on this article uses primary sources only.

2. Fix Hawarey link. Correct link to Hawarey profile page is: Dr Mohamed Musabn Hawarey Profile (archive) a scholar from the University of Damascus. Proof he is author of book: Front Page of book. Note: On front page image of book it shows author is "Dr. Mohamed Mosaab Hawary". Make Reference as below:

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

@Misconceptions2: Per WP:MOS/Islam the authenticity of Prophetic reports and narrations should be reflected, do any of these source speak about the authenticity of these reports?
20:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Where on MOISLAM does it say that every hadith has to be evaluated. If you wanna evaluate a hadith do it from www.sunnah.com . Type hadith in there. They have evaluation. E.g http://sunnah.com/urn/1262630 they rated that one as "Hassan". They have an evaluation for all hadith and sometimes comments like "These verses were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5."--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: The linked article makes it explicit: Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith.
I'm talking about the authenticity of the reports on "Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam)" that are found in Ibn Sa'd's tabaqat for instance, and not some random hadith that has no relevance here.
20:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
See above I already replied to this. Evaluation is wrong word. "Garde" is correct word--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an extreme attempt at synthesizing materials by Misconceptions2 to reach a conclusion not stated by the authors. As WP:Synthesis explicitly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Unless the authors clearly state what is being referenced, it should not be included. Misconceptions2 still refuses to properly engage in the discussions, but has chosen instead to start several new sections, while ignoring and/or choosing to refrain from ongoing discussions. This is very disruptive and not an effective way of trying to solve the issues. Xtremedood (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


"All 3 sources are Muslim Sources so Muslims should prefer them over non muslim sources. Edit war less likely."
Did you forget the fact that Wikipedia Editors should not be biased and analyze and research accordingly. This must be a joke from your part, time to get serious. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So I decided to verify some sources...

So I decided to verify some sources... what I found was that many (amongst the few entries I checked) are either misinterpretations or fail completely verification, here are some examples

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&diff=712086558&oldid=712085122
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&diff=712084175&oldid=712083922
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&diff=712083748&oldid=712083152
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad&diff=712083152&oldid=712082713

We ask @Misconceptions2: for some explanations... 21:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

See here also: Talk:Expedition of Hamza ibn 'Abdul-Muttalib#Lies of Misconceptions2. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Al-Andalusi: Thanks for pointing that, and for confirming my doubts. 23:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Comments (removal of primary sources despite merely only mentioning them and not using them for references)

  • 1st link
  • 2nd link
  • 3rd link
  • I quoted Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:458 . This primary source EXPLICITLY mentions Muhammad performed a miracle whereby he took the sword of an assassin and said "Who can save you from me"
  • The secondary sources in Invasion of Thi Amr also explicitly mention that during this event Muhammad performed a miracle whereby he took the sword of an assassin and said "who will protect you from me" (same thing translation difference)
  • 4th link
  • Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:57:74 . This primary source EXPLICITLY mentions Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow for Islam,
  • The secondary sources in Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid also EXPLICITLY mentions Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow for Islam.

Please note that these primary sources have not been used to verify information. It has been mentioned just to notify the viewer what the primary sources are.

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: As I said in my talk:
1. That's the precise definition of WP:SYNTHESIS: 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Kindly adhere to WP policies.
2. Okay, that sometimes occurs, perfectly natural.
3. That's the precise definition of WP:SYNTHESIS: 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Kindly adhere to WP policies.
4. That's the precise definition of WP:SYNTHESIS: 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Kindly adhere to WP policies.
All of these are instances of WP:SYNTHESIS, so you're only confirming my stance.
Regards,
22:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: Would you please specify what conclusion is reached or implied in these cases? --Rentier (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rentier: Sure, for (1) the primary source doesn't explicitly mention "Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib" or anything close to that, Misconceptions2 used secondary sources to claim that this primary source implicitly does that, this falls under WP:SYNTHESIS. For (3), again same thing, look at what Misconceptions2 stated:

This primary source EXPLICITLY mentions Muhammad performed a miracle [...] The secondary sources in Invasion of Thi Amr also explicitly mention that during this event Muhammad performed a miracle

— Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs)
For (4), again the same thing, see what he states: "This primary source EXPLICITLY mentions Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow for Islam, The secondary sources in Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid also EXPLICITLY mentions Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow for Islam."
Regards,
11:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: Do you believe that the primary sources could refer to different events than the secondary sources in these cases? I am not sure about (1), but in (3) and (4) the connection strikes me as obvious. SYNTH is not obvious. But I have little prior knowledge on the subject, so I am open to being proved wrong. --Rentier (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rentier: The primary sources section should contain refs that directly mention these events, something that is not obviously verifiable in these cases, plus there is no explicit mention of these expeditions or their names in the primary sources themselves.
11:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@Rentier: Historiography of early Islam is complex and contentious and points which may seem obvious usually aren't. These cases attempt to connect material from two different genres of primary sources (sira/maghazi and hadith) based on circumstantial cues. There are different reasons why RS may not support these connections, with the most straightforward one being the different assessments of historicity. Many, if not most secondary sources which rely on reports from one of these genres would not consider reports from the other genre to be authentic. Eperoton (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have asked some admins to comment on whether this is SYNTHESIS or not. Am hoping for a 3rd opinion. I never implied anything by mentioning the primary source. I am merely informing the reader what the primary source for this event is. I do not understand how merely mentioning a primary source for an event constitutes WP SYNTHESIS--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This may not be the third opinion you were hoping for, but I agree with CounterTime that you need to cite RSs which explicitly connect each primary source to the corresponding event. Eperoton (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we all know here that in many of the cases the link between the primary soruce and the secondary source is CLEAR CUT, they both say same thing. Like in the Batn Rabigh caravan raid. CounterTime just seems to not like the primary sources being mentioned even when its clear cut because he probably feels it makes muhammad look bad? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: "not like the primary sources being mentioned even when its clear cut because he probably feels it makes muhammad look bad?" WHAT???
I only argued that the given sources violated WP:SYNTHESIS, the "link between primary source and secondary source" falls under that.
23:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

It's absolutely disgusting the lengths at which this user, Misconceptions2, goes to make such personal attacks on people. Misattributing primary sources, means that he is not only violating WP's WP:NOR policy, but he is also lying about what is stated in these sources. This is evident throughout his articles. Xtremedood (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: Well he just revealed his bias, I don't think this will add to his credibility, especially in the light of past events. 10:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

List

So why are there any red links? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Battles and/or expiditions on maps

A map with arrows for expiditions and a symbols for battles would be VERY interesting/valuable. -- AstroU (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a nice map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#/media/File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg -- AstroU (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) -- The map is already stored, showing expansion per Jihad. Arrows and 'x's could be added, Nicht Var?

@AstroU: Why add a map of the expansion during all the caliphates in an article about a particular era? 17:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2016

Again i tried to change to old version but not letting me edit AmitPaul23 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
if you intend to revert al-Andalusi you will probably get blocked for edit warring. But if you do intend to revert you should provide a valid reason in the edit log. Also to be able to edit you need to make 10 edits and become auto confirmed. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What is edit warring. I already made 10 edit total. On ip and account total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitPaul23 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, Misconceptions2, you think it benefits WP to help this clearly disruptive user, whose only contribution to the discussion has been a personal attack to circumvent semi-protection put in place because of disruptive users? Eperoton (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I get "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." Please help me. I have done 10 edit right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitPaul23 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Before you make any edits you should really discuss on this talk page. What is your reason for reverting. You can only revert manually. If you want to revert to the last version by MusikAnimal you have to copy and paste the previous version manually. What is your reason? Please discuss first --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read the talk page. It isnot fair that one person will make change on article without agreement. Reason is: "It's standard practice to include condensed summaries of material covered in more detail in other articles, and these summaries often replicate their leads". This is good reason, others have mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitPaul23 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@AmitPaul23: Since you're quoting my quote as an argument, I'm entitled to point out that you're quoting it out of context. It's not enough to "read" the talk page. You have to build a consensus for your edit. At one point there was a consensusfor the version you've reverted, which is why some have a rationale for it. Others who have participated in the discussion later disagree. You are just being disruptive. Eperoton (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

New proposal

If people really want to delete data in the article. Fine. But lets not have a blanket deletion of everything. Lets delete all data from sources considered unreliable by the RS noticeboard . I also think if something is considered NOT NPOV then instead of deleting data we should add a counter argument and provide a reference instead to make it NPOV? Please list which "reason" in the reasons column are bad (not NPOV, relioable ref, you dont like it, or some other reason e.t.c). I shall discuss here and try to find a compromise. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: It's not just the choice of reasons that fails NPOV, but artitrarily limiting event discussion to "reasons". To find a compromise you actually have to pay attention to what others write here. Why don't you participate in the "Reason column" discussion above, for starters? Eperoton (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: Why don't you participate in the #Multiple issues section in which we reached consensus on that deletion? (something that I asked you many times before)
19:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Lets go 1 by 1 and do this for now. I hear arguements about NPOV. Then why not add counter information on this article from counter sources to make it neutral? Lets just do the first i.e identify whats not NPOV in your opinion and add a counter source/information/scholar saying something else --Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Because WP:NPOV is not just about he said/she said disputes. It's about reflecting RSs, and you have arbitrarily decided to limit discussion of these events to "reasons", contrary to how RSs treat either the list of expeditions (without the reasons) or the expeditions in general (with other type of discussion). Eperoton (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we have 2 columns, one for the orientalist view and one for the view of Muslim scholars on each row.--Mohammed77uddin (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mohammed77uddin: We already have enough proposals, we should focus now on discussing them, I think (plus that proposal will violate WP:SYNTHESIS IMO).
20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Page protected

Repeating what I wrote at WP:AN/I: This had better do the trick. Page protected, this time with the disputed content removed. I want to see the other side engage in discussion, and when the time comes, seek formal closure. This has gone on long enough. Sockpuppetry or not we will find a true established consensus and put an end to this edit war, once and for all.

If the edit war still persists, you can expect blocks to be handed out liberally. This is in accordance with discretionary sanctions on all pages regarding Muhammad, and this page seems to be exemplary. Editors must work collaboratively, for the common interest of a reliable and informative encyclopedia. Those who choose not to may be blocked or topic banned. Sorry for being so strict on this matter, but apparently that's what it's going to take to get this under control. Thank you for your cooperation — MusikAnimal talk 03:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't get your altitude. Not all muslims are bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.129.70.61 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I have already tried several times to find a compromise. With this many people involved it seems like it won't happen. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 @Misconceptions2: I'm sorry but that's not true, we asked you from right the beginning to participate and discuss in the #Multiple issues section in which we reached an actual consensus (for e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, implicitly: 1, 2), but to this day, you never participated nor replied there, but instead you were busy coaching canvassed edit warriors how to game semi-protection. (c.f. [5], [6])
11:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
See MusikAnimal this is the problem, we are not even willing to discuss the issues. Instead we are discussing wether the other party even attempted to find a consensus. When religion is invovled and you have religious users with names like "XtremeDood" engaged in a conversation I find it hard to imagine there to be compromise. I am wasting my time and I am close to giving up. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Misconceptions2 How do you expect to be part of consensus if you're refusing to participate in relevant discussions? Let's take the "Reason column" section above, for instance. I pinged you at the outset and then explicitly asked you to participate during the exchange under "New proposal". The "Reason column" section currently reflects opinions of four editors regarding the structural problems with the table, but not yours, and you've never even acknowledged these concerns, which have now been restated many times. We wouldn't be discussing your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT pattern of behavior if it wasn't disrupting consensus building. Eperoton (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 March 2016

Would you like the bare references filled? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be helpful --Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Reason column

Starting a new section to make this discussion easier to locate. First, let me try to summarize what I think is the current range of opinions on the matter. I'm including only those who have made a substantive contribution to the discussion. Please correct me if I'm missing anyone or misstating something. I believe CounterTime, Al-Andalusi, and Xtremedood have all argued for removal of this column (or deletion of the entire article), though I'm not entirely sure if it was on WP:TNT rationale or because they were against including this column in any form; Misconceptions2 has argued for keeping it; Rentier didn't have a strong opinion on this point, but suggested renaming the column to "Summary".

For myself, I have argued for removing the column based on WP:NPOV (now with two RSs to go by), though I've also noted that my substantive problem is not with inclusion of details in this article per se, but with the inadequate way they're currently represented, which is partly due to the constraints of the tabular format, partly to the arbitrary choice of the column title, and partly due to the quality of content. I'd like to see if we can't find a middle ground between these positions that addresses the core concerns of on all sides. I would be willing to go with keeping properly sourced content in this column here as an experiment, if we can agree to rename this column "Summary" and break the table with essay-form text when it is needed to allow proper presentation of historical/historiographical context. These changes would presumably mirror improvements made to the individual articles, so there will be a future possibility of reducing this article to a simple list without losing the added content. Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Entire column just vanished i am trying to revert the person but is not working. help me. do i have to make account? - Amit
@Eperoton: Personally, I think that a "summary" for each entry is redundant, the lede of each article already serves that purposes, and the raison d'être of this article is to make a list of such articles for easy access.
Kind regards,
18:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: It's standard practice to include condensed summaries of material covered in more detail in other articles, and these summaries often replicate their leads. It's just not standard practice in lists. I'm curious to know if there are strong objections to making this article less like a list and more like a normal article (maybe changing its name, if appropriate). Eperoton (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Eperoton, those "summaries" all begin with 3 words: "kill", "attack", or "raid". There is no objectivity at all. I personally checked a few sources and pages and found that the summary contradicted the sources. Take the first one for example: Talk:Expedition of Hamza ibn 'Abdul-Muttalib#Lies of Misconceptions2. Al-Andalusi (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@Al-Andalusi: I'm not satisfied with the state of these descriptions, either. What I'm saying is that I don't see a reason why there shouldn't be an article about these expeditions with descriptions that adequately reflect the treatment of the subject in RSs. This column currently has an arbitrarily chosen name that doesn't allow it, so it should at least be renamed, and some material which doesn't apply to a single expedition can be interpolated into the article by breaking the table. Then the descriptions can be improved by willing editors in parallel with the corresponding articles. I'm not currently versed in the sources at this level of detail, but I'm willing to help in this process, and as an involved editor I can be pinged on any of the articles linked here. I agree that the examples you cite from the other article look like violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY, but I think they can be fixed by remaining civil and following WP:DR. The NPOV issue with the table structure could also be fixed by deleting the column, but we are currently at an impasse on this, owing to one editor who's engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this point and coaching canvassed edit warriors how to game semi-protection. This is disruptive behavior and one could seek administrative action. You can try that if you wish, but I would prefer to take the initiative of following WP policies and make an effort to find a consensus solution. Eperoton (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Where is the consensus here to delete the reasons column? Even one halfway compromise proposal I have made has yet to be accepted. I think by the end of today depending on what the people type I may give up entirely. I feel there will never be a consensus with religious people, especially when it involves their religion --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not informed about the issue in question, but to be fair towards Misconceptions2, from what little I have seen, Xtremedood seems to have a history of making severe unfounded accusations towards others about sockpuppetry, including a well established meticulous longtime Wikipedia member such as Misconceptions2, and then systematically blanking his talk page whenever reprimanded for it.
I can understand if Misconceptions2 finds this type of behaviour very exasperating, especially as autistic people, such as ourselves, tend to be very OCD about facts being appropriately and logically structured, without inappropriate (especially emotion-based) omissions. David A (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
user:David A, what is your position on the reasons column? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that it provides relevant information, so I think that it could be kept. Maybe Eperoton could check through it to make sure that it is as matter-of-fact and NPOV as possible? Frankly, I have a hard time understanding what is so offensive about most of it? David A (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: You're back to repeating the same statements and ignoring what others wrote, just like you did under "New proposal" below. Your "compromise proposal" didn't address the policy-based concerns about the structure of the table and the proposals for fixing it (not just mine). Even though I've laid out a policy-based rationale against the column, I've lately been trying to build a consensus for it, mutatis mutandis, as I would have to do per WP:ONUS, since adding descriptions to a list is simply an attempt to improve the article and isn't specifically motivated by policy, but this whole discussion just doesn't seem to be registering with you. Eperoton (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
So maybe am missing something. so what exactly are you proposing with this column? You say your for keeping it, so what must be changed? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: I don't think I can put it any more clearly than I did in my original contribution to this section. Instead of pasting it here, please let me know if something there is unclear and I'll try to clarify. Eperoton (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I am asking what your proposed middle ground is --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: Hmm, it's precisely what I wrote there. Which part of it is unclear? Eperoton (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
i wanna know what existing content you want to remove and give me 1 example of your essay format for 1 row. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: I'm not proposing any specific changes of text here, but as a general principle it should reflect how the expeditions are described in RSs. If it can be done inside individual table cells, we can do that, and if RSs present significant points that cover multiple expeditions, these should probably go between rows breaking the table. I could dig into the sources for a case study of potential text changes, but I think these details can be addressed later. Eperoton (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your middle ground expect I think title should be "Muhammad's reasons and orders for the expedition and summary of events", it maybe long but the need for a compromise justifies the long title over a potential edit war. Then you can also have your essay format. What do you think? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: What is your rationale for requiring a summary column to include these specific details? I don't believe this reflects how RSs treat the subject, when due weight is taken into account. We can do some case studies if you like. Eperoton (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Where getting nowhere with this. YOu will get your essay format and title change and i will also get my title. Do you support my proposal or not? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: WP:CONSENSUS is not a quid pro quo bargain. It's a solution that incorporates "all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Hence, we have to distinguish policy-based objections from personal preferences. I've stated my NPOV-based objection to arbitrarily choosing an overly specific title for the column. Do you have a policy-based objection to giving it a general name and letting RSs dicate the specific details for each event, or is this simply your personal preference? Eperoton (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Theres no policy against giving that title --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: You're back in your WP:ICANTHEARYOU stance. Would you like to try a more sensible response? Eperoton (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
In Misconceptions2's defence, we autistic are usually not very good at advanced communication. Everything has to be worded quite clearly, and in an uncomplicated manner. At least that is the case for me. I also have some trouble understanding what you have intended above. David A (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
If Misconceptions2 has that particular issue, I'll try to adjust my communication style. However, if that's the case, someone would need to help me figure out how to restate my arguments to get them across. I've been asking Misconceptions2 to tell me which parts of them are unclear, but got no response. Their specific points aren't disputed either. I've offered to look into specific cases together, but that offer has been ignored too. So far, all I'm seeing is repeated rejection of my attempts to engage in a detailed policy-based discussion of the table format. Eperoton (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How come CounterTime can make silly broad changes but others cannot

The changes made by CounterTime are ridiculous. Someone revert him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.38.72 (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you man up and do it yourself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Afzalur Rahman, Muhammad as a military leader and his other books - reliable source?

The book was used to justify renaming the article "Invasion of Waddan" to Patrol of Waddan. I could not find anything about Rahman's academic credentials. I am uncomfortable with a book that starts with: https://books.google.ca/books?id=LWkJAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22in+the+name+of+allah%22 being used as a source on history, especially the history of Islam. Can anyone provide some context for this? Rentier (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This belongs in the respective article, since it is not currently being used in this article. As for this article, there are far more issues with the sources indicated in this article, such as utilizing primary texts which are over 1000 years old and self-interpreting them. We see such texts include Ibn Sa'd, Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Hisham. As for the book, it depends on the culture. In Western culture, it is common to use terms such as "Sir", "Alexander the Great" or "Christina the Astonishing" which does not necessarily adhere to my culture. It may not make sense in your culture to add that in the lede, however, this is a common practice in many societies. Such an intro is also found in Mubarakpuri's Sealed Nectar which is far more commonly used here. Xtremedood (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Rahman is used in multiple articles and this article connects them all. That is why I think it is the best place to discuss Rahman's general reliability as a source on the history of early Islam (other than the RS noticeboard). I mentioned the Patrol of Waddan as an example. I would like to keep this thread (section) focused on Rahman. Can you please state simply, what are his academic credentials? Rentier (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Shawqī Abū Khalīl, Atlas of the Qur'an - reliable source?

Again, I could find nothing on the academic credentials of the author. Misconceptions2 quotes it in the AfD discussion as an example of a source that lists expeditions as a group. It contains a column "Cause of Battle or Main Events That Took Place During the Battle" that could be a justification for including the "Reason" column (in some form, I am not qualified to comment on its current content at this point) in the wikipedia article. Is it a reliable source? Rentier (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It is published by a well-known publisher, Darussalam. There are other sources, such as Mubarakpuri which are published by the same publisher. Why not focus on this? Xtremedood (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, the "reason" column is not found in any military list articles that I can think of, see List of World War I battles and List of World War II battles. This is for a good reason. Military conflicts are often complex and should not be summarized in one sentence. Also, why do you and Misconceptions2 have a habit of starting new sections. We already have a section open discussing the "reasons" column and both you and Misconceptions2 have repeatedly failed to properly engage and justify your opinions. Switching topics and adding irrelevant materials does nothing to benefit your position. Xtremedood (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rentier: We've discussed this author in a section that's recently been archived, and I share your concern. I can't find information about the other author you mention, either. While we can and should reflect a broader range of views on interpretation of events (RSs for such views and their relative significance is a separate question), names and structure of articles should reflect mainstream academic sources. Eperoton (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: I could not agree more. I was partly trying to answer the question you once asked Misconceptions2 (which he failed to answer): what is the rationale for including the reason column. If the rationale is that similar column exists in a non-mainstream non-academic book, then we can remove the column and move on. Same goes for the casualties description. I see that was the spirit of your original proposal. The whole discussion that ensued was quite unnecessary. Rentier (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Xtremedood: Which opinion did I fail to justify? --Rentier (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rentier: I'm glad that we finally seem to be moving toward a consensus on this point. I recently tried to gather consensus for your earlier proposal of renaming and rewriting the reason column, but this got no further support. I think removing the column is an equally valid and certainly less time-consuming solution. Also, thanks for mentioning the casualties column. I wasn't bringing it up to keep the dicussion focused, but I do support its removal. Not only does it not reflect RSs structurally, half of the citations in it are to primary sources and the other half are to religious publications -- mainly "The Sealed Nectar", which has gotten a prize from the Muslim World League and so could be considered a RS on interpretations from a certain traditional perspective, but is certainly not the kind of RS we need to source historical statistics. Eperoton (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Yes, absolutely. I have been puzzled why nobody seemed to question using "The Sealed Nectar" as a RS on history. Rentier (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Response about Shawqi

He is academic. If you speak arabic see his wiki page: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D9%88%D9%82%D9%8A_%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%88_%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84 Honours: (google translate)

  • Professor of Islamic civilization and Orientalism Faculty of Islamic Call (Damascus Branch)
  • Lecturer at the Faculty of Law at the University of Damascus
  • Secretary-General of the League of Arabic-Islamic Science and Damascus

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Response about the Sealed Nectar

This book is notable and widely used across the muslim world even today.

Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (in Arabic: الرحيق المختوم , meaning The Sealed Nectar) is an authoritative and popular Sira (biography) of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, written in Arabic .Its Arabic version was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah, following an open competition for a book on the Sirah Rasul Allah (life of Muhammad) in 1979 (1399 AH). The book competed with 170 other manuscripts, 84 in Arabic, 64 in Urdu, 21 in English, one in French and one in Hausa.

Source: http://www.4muhammed.com/Raheeq_Al-Makhtum-EN/2-Introduction

Sorry for my long absence. I was busy. Furthermore he is an "authoritative figure", see his wiki page: Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri . He is also academic:

Mubarakpuri then went onto teach for the next 28 years in various universities, madrasas, and schools in India until he was offered a position at the Islamic University of Al Madinah al-Munawarah. He served several years at the Islamic University of Madinah

On those grounds both of the sources are at the very least authoritative. However they are biased and they show a blind eye to some of Muhammad's brutal campaigns and events. It is not surprising since Muslim authors would only say good things about Muhammad.

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Misconceptions2: Thank you for the explanations. Good to see you back. The issue with the column named "Muhammad's order and reason for expedition" is that Shawqi's book is the only source (that I know of, let me know if there are more) that has something similar. As Wikipedia editors, we are required to include various viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". In the original version of the article, the Muhammad's order and reason for expedition featured far more prominently in Wikipedia than in the reliable sources. That is why I think the column is indefensible. Rewriting it into "summary" would be defensible, but require some work. All this is separate from the fact that almost everything of what the table contains is very likely to be true: those were savage campaigns and Muhammad was a savage man, if judged by today's standards. --Rentier (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see my comment below. Eperoton (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The consensus that was reached on the 26 February 2016

Hi @all! With the recent "archivation" of that post, some people may come to misleading conclusions, that's why I would like to inform you that the #Multiple issues section is available here: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad/Archive_1#Multiple_issues

Regards,
22:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

As you were told earlier, "Consensus can't override a core policy." The version you tend to revert this page to (the one with 28 rows) violates NPOV by excluding rows that are included in similar lists in reliable sources. Do you disagree with any of that? Rentier (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rentier: I think we already discussed at length why the Saraya should not be included, should I copy paste (again) my earlier points? Why do you fail to see that the current version of the article, and even the 26 Feb. version violates WP:SYNTHESIS?
22:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: Just the Cliff's notes, please. --Rentier (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rentier: See my 22:46, 23 March 2016 comment here, read the previous discussion I had with you if you forgot the context.
23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Our discussion with CounterTime on this point was starting to go around in circles and I took up Al-Andalusi's suggestion to set it aside in order to concentrate on the reason column. I remain of opinion that removing those rows would violate NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@CounterTime: Let me reply now, since I did not have the stamina at the time. You wrote "Or should we, as the present article does, combine and synthesize different primary sources". Nobody is advocating using primary sources. The idea is to use the Watt's table as a basis, but also include any expeditions that match the selection criteria (which I understand are: expeditions undertaken or ordered by Muhammad) according to RSs. To exclude rows based on what al-Dawoody and other scholars say would be the quintessence of WP:SYNTH. Rentier (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the lead and probably the title of the article need to be changed. It's not limited to military expeditions, much less "battles". The preposition "of" in the title and the verb "ordered" also seem too strong. The basis for this table are the tables in Watt's book and in the article by Jones that you found. Both of these are standard references, from what I can tell. Watt calls these events "expeditions", while Jones, Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam, and The Cambidge History of Arabic Literature call them maghazi. The latter term, while it's commonly used in academic literature in this sense, has potential for confusion, since there is another way of using it to refer only to expeditions in which Muhammad took part. Once this article gets out of the revert cycle, I'd like to write an introduction that discusses notable historiographical issues, including isnads. Eperoton (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I considered suggesting renaming the article to something like "The chronology of maghazi" but then noticed the ambiguity in the meaning of this term (as you described). The other proposed name, "List of early Muslim expeditions" reminded me of something I have recently read: "it is as unsatisfactory to talk of the conquests of the period as ‘Muslim’ as it is to refer to them as ‘Arab" (P. Frankopan, "The Silk Roads."). This is just an observation, it may still be the best name for the article. I do not see any issues with "List of expeditions under Muhammad".
By the way, I support the earlier suggestion of doing an RfC. It could be based on Al-Andalusi's vote with a few changes but also include Misconceptions2's (redundant) "Keep the old version" option and CounterTime's "Exclude the Saraya". It is the surest way to end the edit wars. Rentier (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we should first give involved editors another chance to reach a consensus on this. We're already a good crowd, and an RfC will bring in fresh participants unaware of the preceding discussion, which I'm concerned may complicate resolution. I'd be curious to hear Al-Andalusi's perspective in more detail when he's back among the editing, and I would really like to overcome the disconnect we seem to be having with CounterTime. Eperoton (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rentier: You're not seeing my argument as a whole, here's a very relevant part: the reason why an article like this can be kept is that it is similar to articles like List of Napoleonic battles, however it doesn't make sense to have a "List of expeditions of X", in fact, if you search for "List of expeditions of" you'll see that this is the only such article. To clarify my proposal: Rename this article as "List of battles ...", include only battles, i.e. no saraya or the other maghazi that were not battles, the article should have the form of a list. HOWEVER, I do accept @Eperoton:'s suggestion on basing this article on Watt's table, as a temporary solution before we delve into discussions on such other aspects. 12:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Of the suggestions presented here, the most feasible option is to use Watt's table as the source for the list. Xtremedood (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I have explained above why some tables like the one provided by Shawqi qualify as reliable sources and could also be used., especially since they are larger. Just used whatever is largest. Dr Mohammed Musab Hawarey's list here: http://www.webcitation.org/5zLhjeYyz seems to be the largest I have come across. He is also academic, see: http://mohd.hawarey.org/en.html Theres no law against using a combination since all are incompolete as Jones, Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam mentions --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
(Moving my comment here to keep the discussion focused in one place) Based on the information above, Shawqi is an academic historian and his book qualifies as a RS. We previously established that the Hawarey is an academic specialist in Quranic interpretation, but could not identify his academic credentials as a historian. To return to where we last left this debate, here's a recap of what we need for WP:DR. We should identify policy-based objections for inclusion and exclusion of the reason column. If these exist, we should try to reach a solution that addresses core policy-based objections from all sides, aka consensus. If there are no policy-based objections to exclusion of disputed material, the WP:ONUS to gain consensus for inclusion rests with the party seeking inclusion of disputed material. As Rentier notes above, and as I have been saying, the policy-based objection for exclusion of the reason column or renaming it to "summary" is based on NPOV (giving due weight to the available RSs). I have not been able to elicit a policy-based objection to removing or renaming this column to "summary" so far, and this has been blocking DR for a while now. Eperoton (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I second using multiple sources to formulate the table. It seems incomplete otherwise. David A (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The table produced by Misconceptions2 is not accurate and is not based on sound academic sources. It therefore does not meet WP's criteria for reliable sources. As discussed, the consensus appears to be using Watts table as the basis for what expeditions make up the list. Xtremedood (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad/Archive_1"