Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 6

Siege and demise

The Siege and demise section has overgrown in my opinion. It may be a good idea to split it into smaller sections.

Also pls. note that my edit summary in this edit is actually referring to this edit.Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the bad faith nature of your other actions, I agree with these two points:

• Zeitlin was already included before the new issue was included, thereby creating the double coverage.
• Yes, the section should be split into two or three section or sub-sections. My suggestion:
  • 1st section "siege" up until the unconditional surrender (what is now the 1st sentence of the second paragraph)
  • 2nd section "demise of the BQ", beginning with the intervention of the BA.
  • 3rd section "legacy", possibly as a sub-section of "demise" including all the references by the Quran, scholars, etc.

Str1977 ^(talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have implemented this in a preliminary fashion. Of course, we could also make another split between Sad's arbitration and the actual killings. I moved the Arafat issue up as it relates to the actual events of the massacre and their historicity and not to judgement on it (at least not directly). Str1977 ^(talk) 13:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There were no "bad faith" edits. The only "bad faith" is you re-introducing the word "massacre" in contravention to the mediation.

The split seems ok, and I have no major objections against it. However, separating "demise" from the "legacy" (I prefer to call it analysis) will be tricky, and let's leave that for now.Bless sins (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling the section "legacy" was part of the preliminary nature of the split. I am not bound to it and "analysis" seems okay. Separating is tricky and therefore I have made the legacy section a subsection and not a new section on its own. Note, separating siege and demise is tricky too.

As for the other thing, I did not violate the mediation. Zeitlin uses that word. Quotes were never subject to the mediation as we have to relate them accurately. Your edits certainly had no basis in talk as the whole "justification" section is bogus. You know that because you were informed of it. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly you state "Irving Zeitlin note "that the massacre was unprecedented in the Arab peninsula." That is a statement of fact. To "note" something, means something has definitely occurred.

Secondly, don't use quotes to bring in the term, because I can use quotes to bring in "execution". I can do so 19 times, and each time my source will be very, very reliable.

Regarding separating, I'd appreciate if you didn't create an Analysis section, while we decide what is to go in it, and what's not to. As I said, I'm OK with splitting siege from demise. If you have problems with that, state them.Bless sins (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If "note" is your problem, we can change the verb to "state" or something like this.

I did not use the quote to bring in the m-word but to bring in an opposing voice to those (IMHO illf-founded and strange) views voiced e.g. by Watt that massacring was simply the normal thing to do back in the day.

I certainly will not wait and do nothing regarding the split. What's the harm in my going ahead. I have no problem with splitting "siege" from "demise" but since the "siege" is only one paragraph, such a split would hardly be worth the trouble. The major work is splitting the rest into two (sub-)section. I don't see there is anything to discuss except maybe the name (but "analysis" was your suggestion) - there certainly is no question "what is to go in it" (based on the current contents). Str1977 ^(talk) 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. If you try and bring in the 'm-word', in violation of the mediation, then I'll bring in the 'e-word', and I'll bring it in 19 times.

The reason for me not wanting the split is that we still don't have core content issues in order. It doesn't help the fact that you are constantly deleting sourced information from the "Siege and demise" section. It just makes this dillma even more confusing.Bless sins (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And this would be a violation of WP:POINT. It wasn't me that insisted on having a "how normal was this back in the day" section but if we have one we need to cover all sides. I am not violating the mediation's result.

Hey, it was you who raised the issue about needing a split in the first place, so I went ahead. What's this about content issues? In what way do they affect the split issue? What's the "sourced information" I am deleting from this section. I don't see it. And what's a dillma? Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be, since I wanted to use "execution" all along (and thus went to the trouble of finding 19 sources). You will not violate the mediation result and sneak the word "massacre" back in. We agree we will replace "massacre" with demise (and the same goes for execution).

Yes a split between the seige and demise has been made. Thanks.

Lots. See "Justification" section for examples.

dillma is "dilemma" misspelled.Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the mediation said that in the M-word should not be used in the section header, practically the only occurence of it before the mediation. That you wanted to use execution all along is just as irrelevant as that I didn't want it. I did not sneak in "massacre", I just used a quote and quotes never were part of the mediation. Your turning around and doing what you (falsely) accuse me of would indeed by disruptive and therefore violating WP:POINT. As long as you keep on screaming about this, I will not even consider whether your has any merit at all.

The section justification is not a justification for anything. You know well that this is all controversial and just because you repost your view doesn't make it a basis for repeated blanket reverting. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue was: 'Neutrality issues concerning wording like "massacre" or "execution" in describing the fate of Banu Qurayza.' You're violating the result of the mediation. This shows that you disinterested in keeping your word and discussing with you is pointless since you can turn around tomorrow and undo the progress made (yet still I discuss for the sake of dispute resolution).Bless sins (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you know about discusing. You haven't engaged in it. All you do on this is shouting "foul!" on me. Please calm down and bring this up again once you have done so. I'll be here waiting for you. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No response to my comment?Bless sins (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will respond once you desist from accusing me of bad faith, i.e. of trying to undermine or circumvent the medition. I was only using a quote. Unless you take back your accusations I cannot help you on this - though I did already changed the verb of the sentence, something you probably haven't even noticed in all your blanket reverts. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I 'll take back my accusations once you remove the word from the article. I promise.Bless sins (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, BS. Assure me that you assume good faith on my actions (even though they may have seem differently to you) and I will propose a different wording. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me something to assume good faith on. Either remove the contentious statement, or stop reverting me. It's hard to assume good faith when the other person is accusing you "blanket revert".Bless sins (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only give you WP:AGF. Remember, we are in this situation because you didn't do so in the first place. Please give me your assurance so that I can act. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my asusrance: Str1977, you have my full confidence of good faith whenever you stop reverting me or whenever you remove the content in question. This is what I can give you. Now can you please get back to the discussion?Bless sins (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see you cannot bring yourself to take back your remarks first. I for my part will certainly not stop reverting whenever you blanket revert. However, since I have reason to be in a good mood and also because I know Someone expects me to make the first step, I will implemented a wording that avoids the dreaded M-word. I hope you will show yourself worthy of this afterwards. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your last edits prevent my from doing what I said. See your talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, can you please post your revised wording here. We can discuss it. I'd self-revert, but appear Merzbow has already done so.Bless sins (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering your constant blanket reverting (I hadn't seen that your penultimate edit did not only concern the intro) you haven't actually deserved it. Nevertheless, it would be (changes in bold):

"Michael Lecker and Irving Zeitlin consider the events "unprecedented in the Arab peninsula - a novelty" and state that "prior to Islam, the annihilation of an adversary was never an aim of war."

I will implement this at the nearest possible date. However, to give you some incentive, I make this change on the condition that you behave in good faith, as per our exhange above. That doesnÄt mena that you have to agree with me or that our discussions cease. But it means that you stop your constant blanket reverting (and I know it is blanket by the little mistakes included). Should you blanket revert again, I will restore the status quo prior to this move. Good night, Str1977 ^(talk) 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm....don't you blanket revert me? In that case your disapproval of my behavior is quite hypocritical. Don't say that you blanket revert my blanket revert, because that is the case of "he/she started it", and quite silly for this encyclopedia.Bless sins (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is clear: I have made numerous edits aimed finding middle ground, compromise etc. I have also cleaned up the form while you are constantly reverting back to formal errors and inconsistencies. I also have not used misleading edit summaries. Your version also is a POV mess. I could go on but the main thing is: my major reverts only react to yours. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have made many edits to find some sort of compromise. I have even tried this with other editors (like Aminz),[1] and yet you reverted both of us soon after.[2] Small errors are the least of this articles concerns. A far greater concern is stability. Your version is actually quite censored one. You have removed references that you don't like, even though they are to publishers like Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. I could also go on, but the main thing is: you are doing the exact same thing as you accuse me of. Outsiders have made the same conclusion.

And I was talking about your recent edits.

Calling other people's edits "censorship" is not AGF. And no, though Aminz invented this notion, OUP and CUP do not automatically mean inclusion, certainly not inclusion by any means. Probably these things will be included once our dispute resolution gets there. Maybe you should try harder regarding the intro so that we can move along. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling other people's edits "POV mess" is not AGF either. And no, Aminz didn't invent the concept of considering University presses (that'd be giving him too much credit), it came about through consensus at WP:V. You should read that policy, and pay attention to the clause "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses". Then you should go to the top and read that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability [by a reliable published source]".

"Maybe you should try harder regarding the intro so that we can move along." I actually have. Jedi asked me to concede that the prophet lead (or was responsible) for the expedition against Qurayza, and I conceded that. Yet, you, continue to deny reliable sources on the topic.Bless sins (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, so are we even now with non-AGF terms?

You do not actually address my point. UP does not mean automatic inclusion.

It is strange that you call your conceding this a great feat when in fact it was an undeniable fact. My concerns are quite of another sort. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding non-AGF terms: this isn't tit for tat. Nor do I insist that you AGF. I only insist that you not accuse me of having bad faith, when you yourself are guilty of the same act. Anyways, I don't see the point of this (we should discuss content).

Ok, this is my reasoning. 1. University Press = reliable. 2. Published by a reliable source = verifiable. 3. Verifiable = Inclusion. DO you understand? If yes, do you agree?

Sources: 1. "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses"

2. "verifiability ... meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source..."

3. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability..."

Regards, Bless sins (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

BS, this isn't about tit for tat. I did not intentionally use a non-AGF term to retaliate but a descriptive, though polemical term. However, I see how you can take that in a bad way.

"Nor do I insist that you AGF. I only insist that you not accuse me of having bad faith, when you yourself are guilty of the same act."

Well, I don't see that I am guilty of the same act. Regarding the back and forth, I was merely reacting to your reverts.

"Anyways, I don't see the point of this (we should discuss content)." Indeed we should, so let's get started.

"Ok, this is my reasoning..."

Your reasoning is okay in principle. However, I disagree with any conclusion that takes that being published by a UP already settles the matter and automatically has to result in a full-fledged detailed inclusion. Also, I disagree that only UP-books are allowed (that was the conflict with Aminz once). All in all, I do insist that it is us who write the article based on RS, not the RS themselves writing.

Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 08:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your above comment in no way objects to my reasoning (if I missed something please point it out), so I'll assume that UP -> inclusion is true. I agree that "a full-fledged detailed" inclusion is not necessarily implied and we can paraphrase the UP etc. Also I never said "that only UP-books are allowed".

SO back to content, you're removing content published in the Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press. I assume you know what you're removing, but if you want me to be more explicit, just ask.Bless sins (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BS, I suppose you haven't carefully read my comment. I specifically rejected any automatism about UP and inclusion. Sure, being published by a UP is a plus but no more.

We will have to deal with how to include things once we get there. Please follow the way set out by the Master Jedi. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you this: if a source is reliable, and relevant to the topic providing useful information, should it be included?

Secondly, you may notice that I have restored sourced content. But you will notice that I have not reverted back to my previous version. I don't mind you editing at all, but if you blanket revert me, or simply remove the content I included, then I too will not hesitate. Please also note that I'm trying to make a compromise, I could have included much more content, but I didn't.Bless sins (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As for your question: yes, IF ALL these condition are met, the information should be included.

I had a look through your (re-)additions and have all considered them with an open mind. I have retained some, reverted some, modified some. I have explained each edit in the edit summary. There is only one item I want to single out now because of its importance:

You included: "According to Barakat's calculations, after Qurayza's 600-900 males were killed, there still remained 24,000 to 28,000 Jews in Medina./ref:Ahmed, 1979, p. 43.)"

• First of all, I take it that this Barakat, referenced as Ahmed 1979, is the Barakat Ahmad we list alongside of Arafat in the skeptics' passage and whose book/paper was also published in 1979. Therefore, you have confused first name and family name, which is annoying.
• If that is so, we cannot use Ahmad's calculation as a quasi fact. He is not the mainstream on this. Therefore I moved him to the skeptics' passage.
• Finally, I wonder whether these figures are accurate. Ahmad argued that only the leaders were killed. Now, he calculates that this made up for "600-900 males". This pretty much agrees with what normally is taken as the death toll - it seems that Ahmad does not after all disagree on the death toll but on the size of the Jewish tribes (since he says 600-900 were killed and were all leaders - how many BQ were there?) And which tribes did these other Jews belong to?

Please clear this up.

And one more thing: please provide the book's title everytime you add something new. Watt 1974 is meaningless to me and I will not go looking for the information which book Watt published in that year.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I will ignore your first point, considering you get annoyed by spellign mistake (though you make them yourself).
• We never used it is fact, though we can. I did say "According to Barakat's calculations..."

Bless sins (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the use of citations such as "Watt 1974": this is entirely consistent with wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes).Bless sins (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding citations like "Watt 1974": it is entirely consistent with your disregard for any readability and providing actually verifiable information. No one is helped by Watt 1974. I have struggled hard to keep the references clear but you don't care about that effort - you just post your old pieces of text over and over again. That is not helful.

When in conjunction with the following item, this really seems like you don't care about a well written article outside of pushing your POV.

Regarding the so-called "Barakat": yes, you did insert him as quasi fact (this is what I said) - your introduced him (by a wrong name) without indicating that his views are controversial on the matter. Simply saying "X says ..." doesn't make for neutrality or balance.

Using a wrong name is harldy the saem as a spelign mitsake. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat myself: saying "Watt 1974" is what wikipedia calls for (Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes). I can't be blamed for doing what wikipedia tells me to do. If you have problem with the policy go change it, and then I will change my ways as well. But until the policy remains, I will continue to use the short hand notation.

"When in conjunction with the following item, this really seems like you don't care about a well written article outside of pushing your POV." Please refrain from making personal attacks.

"without indicating that his views are controversial on the matter" Are there authors that say that his views regarding the calculation of the non-Qurayza Jewish population of Medina is wrong? If so, please give the quotes below.Bless sins (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, BS. WP does not call for it. WP allows for this way of giving references. That's granted. But "Watt 1974" only makes sense a) if the article uniformally adheres to that and (more importantly) b) if the literature section included a book by Watt from 1974 - but our literature section doesn't (if it did, I would be able to clear up your mess myself). This makes your using that item perfectly disruptive. And you are consistently doing it, not caring about how the article will look like. This is no personal attack but an observation about your editing practices and their failures.

Ah, and please don't feign ignorance. You know that Ahmed's views are controversial. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

a)Just because Wikipedia conventions aren't applied to the entire article, doesn't mean they shouldn't be applied to atleast a part of the article.

b)Ok, I'll include the book I'm using in the literature section. I don't see why that's such a problem (and why you didn't say this before).

No sorry, I can't subscribe to your theory that actions sanctioned by wikipedia are "disruptive". If anything, you style of referencing (if not sanctioned by wikipedia) would be considered disruptive (again only if not sanctioned by wikipedia).

I know that one of Ahmed's views is considered controversial. And I am not inserting that view in (its already there). As for the calculations, you need to show (using reliable sources, not your OR) that it is controversial.Bless sins (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

a) BS, WP does not dictate you to use that reference style. This article uses a different one and your refusal to cooperate on this shows your bad faith and disregard for the article's quality.

b) I didn't say so before because I clearly stated what the problem was: that Watt 1974 means nothing to me from reading this article and that I will not browse through WP or the net to find out what book that might be (with the possibility that make a wrong identification). If you add the book to the literature section I at least have enough information to clean up the ref myself. Though I'd prefer if you posted properly worded references yourself, I will not scream if I have to do that myself.

No, sorry, many thing are allowed on WP but an article must have uniformity in such things.

It is exactly Ahmed's view on the BQ massacre that is controversial, hence his figures are too unless an uncontroversial reliable source would confirm them. YOU have to show that it is not controversial. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your references argument is going around in circles (first you admit that wikipedia allows me to use the, then you turn around and forbid me from using the references style). I know that my referencing style is sanctioned by wikipedia and that's what matters the most. I also know that you have not provided an wiki policy that sanctions your referencing style.

Ahmed: let's start on this. Which source shows his views to be controversial? Please provide it. For now on I will assume nothing, and you have to state it clearly and back up yourself with (hopefully reliable) references.Bless sins (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

References: you are to accept the way references are used in this article just as everyone is to accept that this article uses the "CE" notation and should neither revert it to "AD" nor include single "AD" notations. Your violation is of course complicated since including books like you did is incomprehensible to others.

Ahmed: Look into the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are to accept the way references are prescribed to be made on wikipedia. Your argument is basically a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and hence not legitimate.

I have repeated my point again and again: I will take my MOS from wiki policies. If a wiki policy supports your MOS, I'll be more than happy to follow it. I'm not here to impose my style on others, only to follow what wikipedia tells me to do.Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer respond to your disrespectuful attitude towards other editors. WP is not meant for you to leave your droppings as you go by. Please stop misrepresenting wikirules and plese respect how this article is formatted. Otherwise I will simply clean up your mess behind you - if I can. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

{reset indent} The issue is actually quite simple. My referencing style is supported by Wikipedia:CITE#Shortened_notes. You have not quoted any wiki policy to support your style.

Regarding Ahmed, all we have currently is you saying he's not an appropriate source. You have not backed up your claims (atleast in this section of the talk page).

As long as the above situation (where you don't quote any wiki policy or reliable source) doesn't change, there is indeed no point of discussion.Bless sins (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for discussion as you aggressively insist on your right to be uncooperative. Frankly, I have no need for such discussions (especially if they are as illfounded as this, due to the fact that WP does not dictate you to introduce that ref style.) As long as you do not introduce books unknown to this article (when the exact edition is not included in the literature section) I will simply clean up the mess you make.

Regarding Ahmed, you are totally misrepresenting my point (whether you are unaware of that even though I have explained it to you time and again I don't know). He is an appropriate source for his views. His views on the BQ massacre are controversial as evidenced by the sources referenced in the article. Hence, Ahmed is to be included as an opinion and not simply as fact. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"you aggressively insist on your right to be uncooperative" I have made no such insistence, much less "aggressively". I request that you provide the diff where I made a mention of a "right to be uncooperative". If you can't do so, then you should retract your comments, which I find quite offensive.

"His views on the BQ massacre are controversial as evidenced by the sources referenced in the article." One of his views is "not entirely convincing". That doesn't make him overall an unreliable source.

There are often minor disagreements between scholars (such as those between Stillman and Serjeant on a special treaty), but that doesn't mean everything they say is an opinion.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you really not understood? So once again: I care more about what you do than about what you say. I never said you mentioned a "right to be uncooperative" so stop asking for diffs. However, you are uncooperative. You insisted that you have a right to insert refs like "Watt (1974)" - I call that uncooperative.

As for offensive, stop your behaviour and I will not have to comment it. I find your behaviour offensive.

Watt is clearly using understatement. Also, what we have is enough to see that Ahmed is uncontroversial (and the nature of the figures confirm this) and hence we cannot use him as you want to. Only if another, uncontroversial scholar agree with these figures can we include them as fact. In which case we cold also use that other scholar, if he exists! Str1977 ^(talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"You insisted that you have a right to insert refs like "Watt (1974)" - I call that uncooperative. " If you consider me following wikipedia policies (which is what I am doing) is "uncooperative", then I've nothing further to say. I suppose a vandal would also call me uncooperative if I reverted his/her edits - so "uncooperative[ness]]" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Watt says what he says, and that is that he disagrees. Simple. Scholars often disagree. I already told you that Stillman and Serjeant disagree with each other on the existence of a special treaty. Does that make them both "controversial"?Bless sins (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please cite me the policy that forces you to use this format? I never questioned that WP allows for it. I will not go to another article and insert my style there (at least not without a major rewrite, say of a stub). What I am asking you is merely to respect the uniformity of this article.

Yes, Watt disagrees with Ahmed. By what logic does that suddenly make Ahmed's figures consensus? Str1977 ^(talk)

Watt only disagrees with Ahmed on one point. Even that is not a complete disagreement as he says it is "not entirely convincing". That doesn't make Ahmed's figures as consensus - but it doesn't make them unreliable either.

Finally, I never included Ahmed as fact - I have clearly attributed Ahmed's words to Ahmed himself.Bless sins (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahmad is also quoted by F.E. Peters, whom you should agree is a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Watt only disagrees with Ahmed on one point." - The trouble is that this point and what you want to include is intertwined. Apart from a statement by Watt that the figures are correct, we must assume that Watt would disagree with them.

"That doesn't make Ahmed's figures as consensus" - Then why are you treating them as if they were? We have no other figures (apart from the number of victims) in the article - hence your presentation means endorsement. The reader has no alternative but to take these as "the truth". And that's what I meant with "you present them as fact". Merely adding a "X says ..." does not change this.

"Ahmad is also quoted by F.E. Peters ..." - I would. Can you quote the relevant passage with the figures here? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to go find other figures, that is not my fault.

Regarding F.E. Peters' quote see [[3]]. It's interesting that you yourself have deleted this quote (in your last blanket revert), and now ask me to provide it.Bless sins (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My actual or supposed laziness does not authorize you to push POV and present a controversial author as "truth".

As for Peter's quote (1994, p. 301): "According to Ahmad, whose estimate of the Jewish population at 36,000-42,000 has already been cited, the departure of the Banu Nadir and the decimation of the Banu Qurayza would still have left between 24,000-28,000 Jews at Medina." - Does that mean that Peters agrees with him or does he merely cite him? I am asking you that.

Another point: this all puts doubt on our claim that B. Ahmed disputes the massacres' extent as his figures pretty much agree with the traditional figures - as opposed to Arafat who actually disputes the killings.

I see three elements that should be distinguished:

• Ahmed's figures (if endorsed by Peters): Jews before the BQ massacre minus the number killed (and expelled) makes the number afterwards.
• Ahmed's view that the 600/700 were merely the leaders and the rest were let off.
• Arafat's claim that hardly anyone was killed.

Do you agree with these distinctions? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 you can't remove a source because you can't be bothered to go find other figures.

I got the Peters' quote off google books, and can't view all of it. (Don't worry I'm trying to get a hold of the book in the meantime). From what I can view, it appears that Peters is atleast citing Ahmed (alongside another source). He is also saying "whose estimate of the Jewish population at 36,000-42,000 has already been cited" implying that he has relied on Ahmed's figures below. In my opinion that makes a borderline case for agreeing with Ahmed, though I'll have to check out the book.

However, merely citing him should be enough. As Peters' cites Ahmed, while attributing him, so can we, as Peters' book is a reliable source.

I don't understand why you are making the "distinctions".

• Jews before the demise of Qurayza and the expulsion of Nadir minus the number killed, died naturally, exiled etc.
• I'm not sure exactly what Ahmed's view on the number killed is, but I'll verify it as I can get access to his book.
• I'm not using Arafat, so I don't see how he's relevant.Bless sins (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

BS, you make it hard to assume good faith. Are you intentionally misreading me or are you just unable to read. "Str1977 you can't remove a source because you can't be bothered to go find other figures." I DID NOT REMOVE AHMED! I MOVED HIM!

Re Peters: This is an honest question I hope I am right in deducing from your second paragraph that you take it that way.

"I don't understand why you are making the "distinctions"."

I dinstinguish so that we can properly cite all elements in their proper place. In other words, if Ahmed's figures are not controversial but his characterisation of "only leaders were killed" is (currently referenced in the article), both should be properly covered. This makes Ahmed's view quite different from Arafat (I never said you used him) who denies the entire massacre. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By putting it in footnotes, it's as good a removing them. Imagine if I put Zietlin's opinions in the footnotes.Bless sins (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Putting in footnotes is putting in footnotes.

Why would I put them in footnotes: because there is one point that is basically undisputed: Watt's "There remained Jews in town." and details to that contradict each other: Ahmad's figures and Firestone contradicting them. The main point (Watt) however is not disputed.

Putting Zeitlin's opinions in footnotes would be a clear sign of POV pushing. I didn't expect such a disruptive suggestion even from you. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am confused:

Above, Ahmad seesm to accept a figure of 600-900 dead.

But according to his article,

Ahmad further argues that the account given by Ibn Ishaq cannot possibly be accurate[5], as, for 
example, states that the beheading and burial of 600-900 men would have been physically too colossal 
an undertaking for a small city like Medina,. He also writes that the corpses would have constituted 
an obvious menace to public health.[1]

So is he actually disputing the figure or is he accepting it. For the moment, I will go with our earlier take that he disputes them, that he thinks only the leader (who would not make up 600-900 people) while keeping the Jews after massacre figures intact.

But we have to clear up this issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One more discovery:

Ahmad's figures are disputed:

"10. Some Jews not belonging to the three great Jewish clans of the Qaynuqa', Nadir, and Qurayza seem to have continued to live in Medina after the destruction and expulsion of the Qurayza (W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961], pp. 174-175), but their numbers could not have approached the numbers suggested by Ahmad (Barakat Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews: A Re-examination [New Delhi: Vikas, 1979], p. 43)."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n4_v46/ai_20583579/print

Str1977 ^(talk) 13:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now you can no longer claim: The reader has no alternative but to take these as "the truth". I have mentioned both opinions and that should clear matters up.Bless sins (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It was I that mentioned both opinions. It was I that dug up disagreement (confirming my sense that the figures are ridicilously high.

Except for agreeing with me without noting that you do, you should rather comment on the other stuff that needs clearing up.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Now what it is?

BS restored this passage:

According to Serjeant, the Qurayza were aware of the two parts of a pact made between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes in the confederation according to which "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/ breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house."

Now the passage "having their religion and the Muslims having their religion" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue addressed here (unless one wants to argue that Muhammad massacred the Jews for refusing to become Muslims).

And what is it that Serjeant says? Is it "anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime" (which is not proper English) or "anyone who acts treacherously" or "anyone who breaks an agreement"?

Because of this, I asked for clarification via a tag. Removing this tag without even addressing the question, can only be seen as highhanded arrogance and a tendency to push POV. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

From the text, Searjent has written:

...excepting anyone who acts wrongfully (zalama) and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house. (p. 28)

How is the above not proper English?

Oh, btw, "highhanded arrogance" is a personal attack. I wish you respected WP:NPA.Bless sins (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. Look closer. In any case, if you would respect the minimum of respectful behaviour (like letting unaddressed tags stand) I wouldn't have to call you on this.

I am not prepared to quote Serjeant verabtim if he cannot make up his mind. What shall we do?

I was mistaken in thinking that "to commit crime" was wrong (and only that, could you please for once not mirepresent my point) - apparently it is acceptable though I still think it clumsy. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your argument against Searjent? Does the source not meet WP:RS? Does it in any way contradict a clause from WP:V, or WP:NPOV? Is there any other policy that leads you to have a problem with the source. Please note I will not entertain your personal opinions unless they are backed by wikipedia policies.Bless sins (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not an argument against Serjeant. It is an issue of how to include this. The way Serjeant puts it is not fit for an encyclopedia as he doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind what the text he quotes actually says. Isn't there some more accepted English version of this agreement? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"The way Serjeant puts it is not fit for an encyclopedia" Who decides the standards to judge whether something is "fit for an encyclopedia"? Ultimately the wiki policies. Thus, which policy are you suing to say that the text is not "for for an encyclopedia"?Bless sins (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Serjeant being unable to make his mind up, and I don't see any confusion in his words. The quoted passage is pretty clear to me - and if the cited work is the one I'm thinking of (i.e. his publication on the Constitution of Medina), then it's a good piece of academic scholarship. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Serjeant wrote a scholarly study and hence is able to include more nuances than our comparatively little encyclopedic article. It is a good piece of scholarship but we have to be concise here and give a short treatment with ONE translation.

PS, BS, policies do not decide anything - editors do. I now you never grasped this but we are not robots. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"we have to be concise here" Wikipedia is not paper.

"policies do not decide anything" On the contrary they decide everything. The editors only act in accordance with policy. No one said we're robots, but our actions need to be consistent with policies, especially when there are disputes. Bless sins (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not paper" – it is an encyclopedia nonetheless and hence has to be concise.

" On the contrary they decide everything. …" But you are above arguing for us being robots. We act and edit under the policies but is US who make editorial decisions – and argue over them.

You may have noted that I only tagged this quote for clarification and did not make any unilateral moves. My intention on this issue is to make the article a little better. I have no clue why you oppose even the slightest move in that direction. Or are you merely opposing me? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want clarification, then that is legitimate. I respect that. But your edits say different things. According to your latest edit you are removing the sourced content: "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting". Removing is different than clarification. For removal you need the justification from WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc.

So please make up your mind: is it clarification, or removal (or both) that you seek?Bless sins (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am clearly talking about the phrase:

"...excepting anyone who acts wrongfully (zalama) and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house. (p. 28)

"

You know that so don't pretend otherwise. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If so, then why are you removing "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting" You say one thing, but do another, which confuses editors like me.

I have an issue with you removing the above statement as you haven't explained yourself on it.

Regarding:

"...excepting anyone who acts wrongfully (zalama) and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement, for he but slays himself and the people of his house. (p. 28)

"

It means that someone who commits a crime or breaks the agreement (through treachery or otherwise) will not enjoy the provisions of the agreement and is responsible for his killing.

Is it clear now?Bless sins (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"If so, then why are you removing ... I have an issue with you removing the above statement as you haven't explained yourself on it."

How is that passage relevant to the BQ?

"t means that ..."

I know what it means. My question was not what it means but whether there is a better, more readable way of including it. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevance: I think its a statement from the treaty with Qurayza, though let me double check.

I thought you wanted a "clarification" on the statement. to answer your question: yes, there probably is a better way of including this.Bless sins (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am merely looking for a better, less wieldy way to include this. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

Str1977 has dragged the issue of terrorism in the discussion.[4]

Str1977 has accused me of "list[ing] a supporter of terrorism as a scholar." I find this accusation to be false. Thus, I'd like Str1977 to substantiate evidence that I've done such a thing.

Bless sins (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You know which scholar I am talking about. I will say no more. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 has failed to substantiate his/her allegation showing that it was indeed false. I'd like to repeat my request to Str1977, that he/she not make any false allegations against myself or any other wikipedians.

Such a false allegation serve only to derail discussion.Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My "allegation" is not false and not directed against any wikipedian. We both know who I am talking about so there is no need to go into that any further. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 has been blocked for 24 hours for continued incivility and personal attacks. Shell ^babelfish 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the block I went through, I consider this section closed. Any more comments needed (not stooping so low as I did before) I will post where it is appropriate. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Large Muhammad quote

Devotus made a valid addition but also added this:

In spite of the religious polemics the following principle was established, in the form of a saying ascribed to the Prophet: < blockquote >"He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (Muhammad) as his accuser on the day of judgement."< ref >Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri: Kitab Futūḥ al-Buldān. ed. by Michael J. de Goeje. Leiden, 1866. p. 162; cited in: A. J. Wensinck, J. H. Kramers: Handwörterbuch des Islam. Brill, 1941. p. 18; q.v.: Bernard Lewis: The Jews of Islam. Princeton University Press, 1984. p. 32; Majid Khadduri: War and Peace in the Law of Islam. The John Hopkins Press, 1955. p. 175< / ref >< ref >For similar accounts see: Yaḫyā ibn Ādam: Kitāb al-Kharāj. Brill, 1896. p. 54 (cited in: James Hastings: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 23: v. 23. Kessinger, 2003. p. 367); Abu Dawud: Kitab as-Sunan. Book 19, No. 3046< / ref > < / blockquote >

I think this part of the addition superfluous and wrong:

• Superfluous because it adds nothing on the BQ. The topic of this article is the BQ and not the situation of Jews or Christians under Muslim rule. So any outlook on this should be very brief and concise.
• Wrong because it creates the impression that no Jew and no Christian was ever wronged by a faithful Muslim. This is evidently not true. The Muhammad quote is also probably apocryphical as the addition itself seems to imply ("ascribed to the Prophet").
• Furthermore wrong because giving the quote doesn't really tell us anything substantial about the situation of Jews and Christians. What is "to wrong a Jew" in Muhammad's eye?

Devotus, please respond to this. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, plus that text really makes no sense. Who established such a principle? Was it followed? "In the form of a saying" is meaningless - does this mean the principle was based off the saying, or the saying was established as law? Plus, I checked at least one of the references provided - p. 32 of "Jews of Islam" - and found nothing on this. Given that red flag, I've removed the text until it can be discussed further. - Merzbow (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer to all three of Str1977's points lies in the sources used. If the sources say this, then we state what the sources state. This is what WP:V calls for.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask both St1977 and Merzbow both if they have viewed the sources, and verified for themselves that the sources are not talking about the Qurayza. Alternatively, Devotus can provide quotes for us here.Bless sins (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BS, that is of no consequence. We do not include what random books are saying into this specific article. I needn't have to look up whether these books somewhere mention the BQ. If they do, I presume that they say about the BQ what our article already says. What Devotus included however didn't concern the BQ at all. So you can stick your cherished WP:V for once and introduce the actual issues. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I did spot check the one source on hand (Lewis), and there was nothing in there regarding such a principle, let alone the relationship to the BQ. - Merzbow (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The section concerns the analysis of the Qurayza-incident. Thus I have added the part about the legal judgements concerning this incident. But to avoid misunderstandings I have added, that the Qurayza-incident was no model for normal behaviour toward the ahl al-kitab. And in the ref given (SEI), this claim is clarified by the addition of the quote you have mentioned here. Therefore the quote is not dispensable, since otherwise the claim would become unclear.
• There is no suggestion that this principle has invariably been followed. On the other hand it is a widely accepted fact that this was an important principle. Furthermore it is not the question wheter this account actually is authentic and the term "ascribed to" does not imply it being wrong.
• To wrong a Jew (and dhimmis in general) was generally understood as not upholding the defensive alliance made with them, not fighting on behalf (to protect) them and overburdening them with taxes, just as e.g. Umar is supposed to have formulated it on his deathbed (see [5] and [6]). And this supposed utterance of Umar is an example for how the dhimmis were seen in legal aspects in early Islam, as Cohen puts it (Under Crescent and Cross, p.223).

Merzbow: Lewis cites a similar account, where the prophet is supposed to have stated the same about dhimmis in general.--Devotus (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, the quote doesn't make matters clear in any way. It is prophetic speak attributed to Muhammad but doesn't say what "wronging a Jew" or "wronging a Christian" is. As amply demonstrated by sources like Ramadan and editors like BS, some argue that the BQ were not wronged at all but had their bloody fate coming. Which results in Muhammad's threads not applying to them.

I agree with the addition that the BQ massacre was not the model for treatment of other religions. But that's as far as it goes. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are doing original research based on your interpretation of a large number of sources. Can you provide a quote from one of those sources that specifically says "In spite of the religious polemics the following principle was established, in the form of a saying ascribed to the Prophet: < blockquote >"He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (Muhammad) as his accuser on the day of judgement.", and specifically ties it to the subject matter of this article? - Merzbow (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research by citing secondary literature? The sources are cited in accordance to the refs provided. Lewis, Khadduri etc. are citing akin accounts, stating the same. The quote is taken from the Handwörterbuch des Islam (as referred to in the article). How it is related to the article and thus is necessary has already been explained - I'm not gonna repeat it again.--Devotus (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Stating the same" is simply not true, as I verified by checking the Lewis reference. If all the other references are like that, then it appears we are left with the "Handwörterbuch" reference, which you still claim says specifically that. It looks to be in German and from 1941, so you'll have to provide us with the original and a translation of the text from there you claim supports your text. - Merzbow (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lewis cites a similar account, as already mentioned; so does the ERE and Khadduri. That's why I wrote "q.v." in the ref. That you don't have the HdI is your problem, not mine; it's a shorter, German edition of the EI1, so you can look it up in there, too, in the article "Ahl al-Kitab".--Devotus (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it has become your problem, because your other cites have not panned out; Lewis p. 32 says nothing about the principle or the saying in the article text. You need to prove to us what you are quoting is accurate, because so far, that hasn't been the case. - Merzbow (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Before we go on to the debate on "whose problem" it is to provide the quote, let me say some thing.

• Wikipedians are not obliged to provide direct quotes from their sources in order for the material to be included. If this was true, I could force you to spend hours in the library in just providing quotes for all the sources used in this article.
• However, if another user checks the reference (or claims to have), and finds that another wikipedian has misrepresented the material, then quotes must be provided to ensure that there is no misquoting.
• Please note that if you don't have access to a source, and I provide a quote from it, then ultimately you must trust me for accurately giving you the quote. Thus, whether a user provides a quote or not, we trust him/her, unless we have access to the source.

So far Merzbow claims to have checked only the Lewis reference, obliging Devotus to provide the quote to sustain his addition. I don't think Devotus is obliged to provide the quote for other sources that Merzbow hasn't verified.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A short sentence like that does not need a half-dozen cites to support it. The fact that the cite I checked has nothing to do with the text, unlike what Devotus claims, casts serious doubts on his other cites. The fact he is unwilling to spend 30 seconds providing the full quote from EI casts further doubt. If he wants to add controversial material to an article, he needs to go the extra mile. How would you like it if I dug up some book that only those with a $1000 university subscription could read, and used it as a source for "Muhammad tortured X and Y before killing them", and then said "forget it" when you ask me to provide the quote? Think about it. I know exactly what you'd say. - Merzbow (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're asking of Devotus can be called a "favor". It'd be very nice of Devotus to do such a thing, but he's not under an obligation. I'm sorry that you don't have "$1000 university subscription" (I don't even know what that means).

"and then said "forget it" when you ask me to provide the quote" You're right that I'd get a bit emotional. Maybe even jealous that you had access to such resources that I didn't. But none of that would be legitimate.

I re-iterate my point to you: even if Devotus provided the quote, you would still be 100% dependent on him and would have to just trust him. Why not trust him now (and save him the trouble)?Bless sins (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys... we're trying to build an encyclopedia here. We're all colleagues - if someone would like insight into the passages cited from sources then providing that shouldn't even be an issue. ITAQALLAH 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that statement. We all should be more forthcoming to each other (and I include myself in this for sure.) Str1977 ^(talk) 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here the quote: "Trotz aller in gehässigen Sprüchen ausgeprägten fanatischen Gefühle ist in Form eines dem Propheten zugeschriebenen Ausspruchs folgender Grundsatz aufgestellt worden: 'Wer einem Juden oder Christen Unrecht tut, gegen den trete ich selbst (der Prophet) als Ankläger auf am Tage des Gerichts.'" You do not need a "$1000 university subscription" for getting acces to the EI1, neither for the SEI or the HdI. And Lewis cites a similar account, in the German edition (which does not use Roman numerals for the preface) on page 46, in the English edition on page 32; that's why I wrote "q.v." (quod videm).--Devotus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And from the SEI: "Against all fanatical sentiment expressed in odious terms the following principle was established, in the form of a saying of Muhammad's: 'He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have myself (the Prophet) as his accuser on the day of judgement.'". On page 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotus (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Established by whom, and what does this have to do with the BQ? And the Lewis ref still doesn't back up that sentence; I see no "similar" account. - Merzbow (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Muhammad quote is not needed in this article. I already explained why it is meaningless. We acknowledge the general fact that the BQ massacre was the model and give references for those scholars telling us this, including the Handwörterbuch, Lewis, Khadduri. I tagged the whole thing as "clarifyme" in case there is still doubt about whether all these say that.

I also tagged the Handwörterbuch as we still need the lemma - assuming that this works like Encyclopedias an and Lexica commonly do. What we do not need is to copy the reference section of that Encyclopedia.

In regard to different editions of Lewis: While I do not object in principle to the German version, the English version is preferred. Especially, if there seems to be disagreement that something is not found in the English version. The English is the original written by Lewis. Str1977 ^(talk)

I already explained why your assumption that it is meaningless is wrong. Refs have been given; if you can't check them it's your problem. The German edition of Lewis' book does not contain any differences regarding the content. Why do you need the lemma of the Handwörterbuch ref? it's the same as in the SEI and EI1: Ahl al-Kitab, written by Ignaz Goldziher.--Devotus (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Lewis: then why didn't Merzbow find the information?

Re Lemma: We need the lemma because that is how an encyclopedia is referenced. No one picks it up and looks for page numbers. Also, encyclopedia often have different authors for different lemmas. The lemma is the article.

One more question is the "Shorter encyclopedia" merely a translation of the "Handwöterbuch"? If so, the Handwörterbuch will have to go as we should not name the same reference twice. 16:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Merzbow claimed cite-check failed[7], Devotus seems to have changed the reference[8].

Are you saying that the information is not even present in that new reference?

As a side note, can you (Str1977) sign your comments? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the change in the reference BUT Devotus above explains that there is no difference between the two editions. If there is no difference, Merzbow's point stands. I am defending his request against your attempts to censor it.

PS. I do sign my postings. No need to lecture me on that even if I forget it once. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Handwörterbuch des Islam is no translation of the Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, especially since it's been published 12 years before the SEI. Other than that I would like you to explain me why you don't want the quote to be in the article.--Devotus (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All right. I was just asking whether they were one and the same in two languages. If they are different both may stand.

Why I don't want the quote?

You state the quote is meant to clarify but in fact the quote doesn't clarify anything. I explained above. In the quote, Muhammad warns Muslims to wrong Jews and Christians and threatens retribution on Judgment Day. Only, the quote doesn't say what "wronging Jews and Christians" actually is? Muhammad had the whole tribe of the BQ killed – was that wronging Jews? In his view probably not because he applauded the decision. So any Muslim bent on killing Jews could have taken the massacre as an example and state "I am not wronging Jews but punishing them!"

Furthermore, the quote doesn't add anything on the topic of the BQ. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is an important addition to the claim that the execution of the Qurayza was no model for later relationship of the Muslim rulers towards their non-muslim subjects. But I do have to admit that it is not clear what "wrongs" means in this context; that's why I'll add another similar account, where Umar is supposed to have told his successor shortly before dying to "abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis of God and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax them beyond their capabilities."[9]. This will clarify the quote.--Devotus (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The Muhammad quote does not add anything to our coverage because it is so vague. I am quite open to any different account and will consider it. However, the "wrong a Jew" quote has to go. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Umar quote is a bit more specific but still quite vague. However, if Muslim jurists quote these I am prepared to include both, the Muhammad and the Umar quote, in a footnote. What do you think? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why only mention them in a footnote? Scholarship generally accepts the fact that this was a principle: See the HdI ref (and accordingly the EI1 and SEI under the same lemma). See e.g. also Muhammad Hamidullah: "Muslim Conduct of State" (p.113f.), who quotes Abu Yusuf (Kitab al-Kharadj, p.69ff.): "O Commander of the Faithful (Amr al-Mu'minin, i.e. the caliph)... It is necessary that thou should treat the people who were protected by thy Prophet and thy cousin Muhammad (i.e. non-Muslim subjects) with leniency, and inquirest about their conditions so that they are neither oppressed nor given trouble nor taxed beyond their capacity, nor anything of theirs is taken from them except for a duty encumbering them. For it is reported from the Messenger of God who said: Whoever oppres a non-muslim subject or taxeth him beyond his capacity, then I shall be the opposite party to him in the litigation on Doomsday." But maybe you can show me scholars who disagree. Otherwise I see no reason for relativizing this simple but important fact. And why are the quotes vague? After I've added the Umar-quote it is clear what to wrong a dhimmi means.--Devotus (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, I am trying to compromise and you slap me maximalist demands in the face. I can do that too: Why include them at all. Both are vague and meaningless. Even the Umar one who says something about contracts and regulations. How does not contradict the possibility of applying the "BQ solution"? Str1977 ^(talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I too disagree with Str1977 putting them in the footnote. While putting very long and unnecessary quotes in footnotes is alright, these quotes are fine in the article.

I don't find either to be "vague" (if you want a clarification, ask), nor "meaningless". The quotes, in the manner included, seem to satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Is there any policy that would call for a removal of them?Bless sins (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, please explain to me in simple terms how the M quote and the U quote work in the context of this issue. How do they explain that the BQ massacre was not made the model? Things like that.

And because THAT is the issue, you can leave your policyquoting at the door. They don't mean a thing if the things that are "verified", "neutral" and "not originally researched" are not relevant to the passage. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bless sins. Str1977: simply answer the question: are there any scholars disagreeing this? Regarding the context: as I repeatedly have told you, the quotes clarify that the Qurayzaexecution was no model for later behavious toward the ahl al-kitab.--Devotus (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with what?

The problem is that currently there is nothing to disagree with. Aside from view "BQ not taken as a model" - with which nobody disagreees, there is not argument.

The quotes do not clarify that but only give vague instructions "not to wrong Jews" and to "keep contracts with Jews" and "not to overtax Jews". I again ask: Where the BQ wronged by Muhammad? Did Muhammad keep his contract with the BQ? Were the BQ overtaxed?

The quotes don't add anything. My suggestion to keep them in footnotes (where they do not disrupt the chain of thought) was to my attempt to please you.

The alternative is: please explain to me the logical connection between any of the quotes and the statement "BQ not a model". Currently, it doesn't make sense. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with the fact that the quote represents a principle.
• The quotes are clear enough. Anyone who knows what a dhimmi is will understand what is meant.
• The Qurayza have never been dhimmis. The quote deals with regular behaviour toward the ahl al-kitab, excluding the Qurayza, since it is mentioned in the text that their demise was no model for later treatment of the dhimmis.
• The connection with the principle has already been explained several times.--Devotus (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• How does the quotes relate to the statement that tbe BQ were not the model.
• I know what a dhimmi is but I still don't understand the quote.
• "since it is mentioned in the text that their demise was no model for later treatment of the dhimmis" - what text? Can you quote this text to me? It might be the thing I am looking for.
• No, you haven't yet explained it. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's not an answer to my question.
• What part of the quotes don't you understand?
• The text meaning the article.
• Again: to avoid misunderstandings I mentioned - after the mentioning of ash-Shafii and others - that the way the Qurayza had been treated was not the normal way Muslims acted towards the ahl al-kitab. This claim is made in the EI1 unter "Ahl al-Kitab" (and thus in the SEI and HdI); it is clarified in the same ref by the quote in question. Since you are of the opinion the quote is not clear enough I added another quote clearly stating that "wronging" in this context means: a) breaking the defensive alliance made with the dhimmis b) not to protect them (fight for them) and c) to tax them beyond their capabilities. Thus the quotes are necessary, since they clarify on what basis the ahl al-kitab were normally treated.--Devotus (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Devotus,

What was your question?

My question was what the exact question between the statement "BQ were not the model" and the two quotes. Can you explain that to me.

The second quote did not clarify what "wronging" meant very much. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted to describe the Dhimmis' situation we would have to do it comprehensively or at least give a summary of such a comprehensive treatment.

You say the BQ were not Dhimmis which is true because that concept only fully developed later. But was their situation so completely different? Would they have fared differently had they been Dhimmis? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is no spot for argumentation; the only thing to be cleared here is what the technical literature is saying about this topic. You can look up what my question was. Your question has been answered several times now.--Devotus (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I see no question by you and if you cannot repeat it I assume it wasn't that pressing after all.

If you mean by "the only thing to be cleared here is what the technical literature is saying about this topic" that we merely have to quote sources you are dead wrong. Currently, the quotes are included without any link in thought to the rest of the article. We have to include them in a proper form, in order to explain something, not merely for their own sake.

That way my question and my question has not been answered at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The question was: "are there any scholars disagreeing this?"[10] - "this" meaning the quote being a principle. Regarding your question: the reason for including the quotes has been explained several times now. The sentence of mine you just quoted meant that were not here to discuss why what was or wasn't, i.e. not here for discussions about the topic itself. That referred to your questions here.

Since I already explained several times why the quote is necesarry and not vague after the addition, and since you don't seem to be able to name scholars disagreeing the facts described in the text I see no reason for relativising all of this by making it a footnote or even deleting it at all.--Devotus (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. The problem is you haven't explained how the quote explains that the BQ massacre was not model.

A call for "scholars disagreeing" is futile. Irrelevant stuff should not be included.

If you don't like the footnote. Fine. Next time the quotes will be gone alltogether. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you calling it "irrelevant". If a scholar says that the execution of the Banu Qurayza was never taken it sa a model, isn't that relevant to Banu Qurayza?Bless sins (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not irrelevant. I never said that. The statement that the BQ massacre was not taken as a model is certainly relevant, referenced and I support the inclusion 100%. My beef is with two quotes that thus have not been properly linked with that statement and hence with the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977: You're repeating yourself. Your question has been answered several times; the HdI itself clarifies the claim by mentioning that principle. The call is not futile at all: since you seem to doubt that the quote in question is a principle I wanted you to name scholars (academics that is) disagreeing that it was a principle. And as I said before, if you can't name such scholars I see no reason for relativising this simple fact.--Devotus (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am repeating myself because you are. My question remains unanswered. How are these quotes linked to the statement that the BQ were not taken as a model? Nothing in these quotes would have saved the BQ from their killers. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it that the sources are that use these quotes are actually making the argument "Banu Qurayza were not taken as models"?Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977: the Banu Qurayza were no dhimmis. Regarding the link between the quotes and the statement: "Again: to avoid misunderstandings I mentioned - after the mentioning of ash-Shafii and others - that the way the Qurayza had been treated was not the normal way Muslims acted towards the ahl al-kitab. This claim is made in the EI1 unter "Ahl al-Kitab" (and thus in the SEI and HdI); it is clarified in the same ref by the quote in question. Since you are of the opinion the quote is not clear enough I added another quote clearly stating that "wronging" in this context means: a) breaking the defensive alliance made with the dhimmis b) not to protect them (fight for them) and c) to tax them beyond their capabilities. Thus the quotes are necessary, since they clarify on what basis the ahl al-kitab were normally treated"[11] --Devotus (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Devotus, shall I copy and paste my postings too? And we can do that ad infinitum. Only, that doesn't help anyone. I have read your posting before I replied to it.

So I am asking again: how are the quotes and out "not a model" statement are linked? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is a principle on which the Muslims based themselves in the treatment of the dhimmis. It clarifies why the Qurayzaincident was no model for later behaviour, since normally the ahl al-kitab were not executed but protected. See the ref given.--Devotus (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We are getting nowhere with this. Simply saying that something "clarifies" something does not make it so. Maybe it would be of advantage if you provide a large citation explaining how this whole thing works.

I know that the BQ were not Dhimmis but they had a status in their city allying them to the Arab/Muslim tribes. An alliance in which both pledged to fight for one another against enemies. Still, at the end of the day, the BQ were dead at the hands of the Muslims, which cited treachery as a justification. That is what happened to the BQ - how does this conflict with the principles outlined by the two quotes. I simply don't see it. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That is what happened to the Qurayza, but not to the Nadir or Qaynuqa, who had been exiled rather than executed for treachery. In the prophet's lifetime we see that the Qurayza's punishment was no model. The Qurayza weren't dhimmis but they were Jews. And the quote serves to dispel the misconception that what happened to Qurayzan Jews also happened to others. Watt and Paret seem to be making a similar argument, infact.Bless sins (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But that is not what the quotes say. The Nadir and Qaynuqa are no good example as they preceded the demise of the Qurayza. But leaving aside that tense problem, they would be better in demonstrating that the BQ did not become the model procedure.

As I said, the problem with the quotes is that they only address in principle that no Jews/Christians should be wronged. According to the Muslim view, the BQ were not wronged but justly punished.

The misconception is already dispelled by the statement that the BQ were not the model case.

The misconception is not that what happened to the BQ never happened to others (I am sure we could find a few similar massacres) but that it wasn't the norm but a singular event.

If Watt and Paret make the case, I am interest to hear it. Anyway, one problem with the quotes was that it was just two quotes without any scholarly interpretation given. I hope Watt or Paret would answer my question (how the quotes related) or do away with the need for the quotes by expanded on the "not the model" statement themselves. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. You have absolutely no justification for removing the tag from the section as long as there is doubt about the Lewis source. Merzbow looked up the English Lewis, didn't find what the reference claimed and hence tagged the section. You replaced the English Lewis with the German edition but also stated that there is no difference between them. What is it now. I will also inform Merzbow of this as it was him looking up Lewis. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you have time to revert but not time to explain, Devotus? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tariq Ramadan

As Tariq Ramadan's own biography here on wikipedia states (completely sourced):

In September 2006, a State Department statement said: "A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan's visa application. The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization." Between December 1998 and July 2002, Ramadan had given donations totalling $940 to two charity organizations, the aComité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP). The United States Treasury designated both the CBSP and ASP terrorist fundraising organizations for their alleged links to Hamas on August 22, 2003. The U.S. Embassy told Ramadan that he "reasonably should have known" that the charities provided money to Hamas. In an article in The Washington Post, Ramadan asked: "How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew ?"

I think this alone proves he is not a reliable source for this topic, and shouldn't be included. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok so the American government accuses Ramadan of something, so he is not reliable (according to Yahel Guhan's reasoning). What if the Chinese government accused a scholar of something wrong? Would that scholar be unreliable? What if it was the Turkish government making accusations against a scholar on Armenian genocide?

Secondly Yahel Guhan ignores the fact that Ramadan's book is published by the Oxford University Press.Bless sins (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The US government stated that he financed Hamas, an antisemitic terrorist group; if that doesn't scream bias, I don't know what does. Now maybe NPOV only matters to you if the article opposes your agenda, but otherwise, it is an important policy to keep in mind when editing, something I have never noticed you do in your editing. The US governmet, unlike the Turkish government, has no connection to islam, or statement on it, and is therefore an unbias source to make such a discretion. If a Chinese government accused a scholar of something, it might mean that scholar is bias too. I don't care who the publisher is. Publishers are a business, not a source; they don't matter. Scholars write material, and therefore maters, not the publishers, so that arguement is irrelevant. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yahel said: " I don't care who the publisher is. Publishers are a business, not a source; they don't matter."

Unfortunately for you, wiki policies say the opposite thing: (from WP:V) "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability" (emphasis added)

Besides Ramadan is a research fellow at Oxford University.[12]Bless sins (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All three, meaning no single one. Thus something can be written by a reliable publisher, and still be unreliable; you seem to be focusing only on one. Anyway, I'll initiate an RFC on this now. Lets get a (hopefully) unbias opinion on this. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You might not care about the publisher, Yahel, but Wikipedia policies do. "Thus something can be written by a reliable publisher, and still be unreliable" -- can you specify where exactly it says this in Wikipedia policy? Quotes about context will be irrelevant, as we know that OUP is a high calibre publisher and has a solid academic pedigree in the field of Islamic studies. ITAQALLAH 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read what has been stated above, and decide for us if Ramadan is a reliable source and/or how he/she should be included. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• The source: "In the Footsteps of the Prophet"
• Author: Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan is a Research Fellow at St. Anthony's College, Oxford University, and the Lokahi foundation.[13]
• Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP). WP:V says "the most reliable sources are ... books published in university presses". OUP is the largest university press in the world.[14]

Bless sins (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since BS selectively quoted WP:V, and misrepresent the issue, I'll quote the policy and bold the relevant parts BS missed:

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

A few other notes to be aware of:

1. The U.S. State department said "A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan's visa application. The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization'
2. Between December 1998 and July 2002, Ramadan had given donations totalling $940 to two charity organizations, the Comité de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens (CBSP) and the Association de Secours Palestinien (ASP).[7] The United States Treasury designated both the CBSP and ASP terrorist fundraising organizations for their alleged links to Hamas on August 22, 2003
3. Hamas is a designated antisemitic Islamic terrorist organization.
4. The Banu Qurayza is a jewish tribe that was persecuted by the muslims under Muhammad
5. Context and NPOV are important in determining WP:V YahelGuhan (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

These "few other notes" you raise are red herrings - unless the US State department determines Wikipedia policy, which it doesn't. Bless sins certainly didn't misrepresent the policy, and you have failed to explain why the parts of policy you highlighted are relevant here (in short: they aren't). In fact, both the highlighted and non-highlighted passages seems to confirm that Ramadan should be included- considering that he is a scholar and is published in a top quality academic press renowned for its work in Islamic studies. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I didn't know that the U.S. state department is such an expert on deciding who is a scholar on early Islamic history. Maybe I should use Iranian state departments on deciding who is a scholar on Jewish history.

2. When Ramadan gave the donations the organizations were not classified as terrorist. After they were, Ramadan didn't donate to them anymore.

3. Not the links to Hamas are "alleged".

4. Completely false.

5. Sure they are. And I have provided some of Ramadan's credentials in the field.Bless sins (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is this a joke? I said the US state department called him a terrorist supporter; they never questioned his scholarship directly
2. yeah right.
3. That only means the organizations have not been convicted yet.
4. No it isn't. See the first paragraph, which explains exactly who they are and what Muhammad did to them. Once again, you seem to be misinterpriting basic english.

YahelGuhan (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand Yahel's concerns. They shouldn't be shrugged off.

However, despite Mr Ramadan's leanings and links to certain organisations, he is also a scholar. Scholars maybe all sorts of things apart from being a scholar.

The point I wanted to raise, albeit in maybe not acceptable terms, was that simply counting scholars and adding more and more is not neccessarily ensuring neutrality and balance, regardless of how often BS is sporting that idea in edit summaries. Neither does the size of a page (no matter how he calculates it) of any real importance to its quality. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Yahel makes a good case, but I do agree that a person's personal opinions don't detract from their reliability if they are qualified in the field and the material is published in an academic press. I think we'd all like to ensure that the issues in the article are covered in a way that is balanced, logical, and incorporates all viewpoints of significance. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, we're not judge scholars b the way they spend their money. What Ramadan did was perfectly legal, else he would have been charged for his crime. Thus, the scholar is innocent until proven guilty in a fair court of law.

Secondly, regarding scholars. To ensure neutrality we must present fairly "all significant views". If we remove the views 11 different scholars, its hard to call our change as "neutral", as then we are far from presenting "all significant views".Bless sins (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, while is is correct that non-scholarly activities do not affect scholarly notability or reliability, they do tell us something about the personality - something that will also be present in their scholarship.

I agree in principle that we should present fairly all notable views. Nobody is disputing this. Only you claim that others are - you push the article in a certain and also make a few indifferent changes, count scholars and then call that more neutral. That's no valid argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"personality" is something we don't care about. We should not judge a source on its, say religion. Anyways, this matter seems settled.

What I count is the number scholars you remove in your reversions. If you removed the opinions of one or two scholars, one could still claim that the article is balanced. But if you don't like the views of 11 different scholars, it means the article has become unbalanced.Bless sins (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we care about it. It is no reason to exclude someone but we have to take everything into account that could affect the balance and neutrality of the article.

Your calculations are nonsensical as I actually did not remove eleven scholars. At worst I removed references from eleven scholars (as I said, I don't probe into your numbers as the whole case is pointless) without removing these scholars alltogether.

You see, I say your version is unbalanced by adding either voices favourable to your POV (Ramadan being just one example) or by presenting them in such a way. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we agree that we shouldn't exclude someone on the basis of color, race, nation of origin, religion, sexual orientation, or other personal, non-scholarly affairs. Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This absurd, thinly-veiled accusation is way out of line. Str has provided numerous reasonable explanations for exclusion of certain information (not scholars) based on WP principles. You respond by implying racism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 hasn't quoted WP policies in the above discussion, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. If he has, please provide the diff.Bless sins (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to quote policies to apply WP principles. OTOH, simply quoting policies doesn't make for a neutral article. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You do when there is a dispute. I claim that your edits and opposition is not in accordance with wiki policies. thus, you need to quote them to justify yourself.Bless sins (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Scholars removed

Here are the scholars who were used as sources to the information you removed:

• Tariq Ramadan
• Montgomery Watt
• Norman Stillman
• Daniel Peterson
• Ceaser Farah
• Shibli Nomani
• Hossein Nasr
• Sohail Hashmi
  • Allen Buchanan
  • Margaret Moore
• Majid Khadduri
• Abu-Nimer

The above is the content that I have personally verified. In addition you are removing content sourced to:

• Mahmoud Ayoub
• Handwörterbuch des Islam

I'm confident that this content belongs in the article, though the sources I haven't personally verified.Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that these should be removed. No one should be removed alltogether if he or she has something notable to say on the topic. Notability in my eyes includes expertise.

As for your list - I never removed

• Tariq Ramadan
• William Montgomery Watt (your unwillingness you use the correct name is distressing)
• Norman Stillman
• Daniel Peterson
• Shibli Nomani
• Sohail Hashmi
  • Allen Buchanan
  • Margaret Moore
• Majid Khadduri

though I removed some content referenced to some these (Ramadan, Watt, Nomani) but these fall into two categories:

• small things that were not actually needed and that were often merely bad stylistic blurbs (e.g. Watt's "practically all" and Ramadan's "the feared the consequences of their treachery" especially - both are not needed and do push a POV)
• larger parts that pertain to the two issues that are still controversial on this talk page: "Deuteronomy" and "BQ chose Sad". You can hardly say that I haven't provided reasons for removing these.

I did removed Abu-Nimer because his expertise is in a different field (and anyway, he falls into the "BQ chose Sad" field as well). In my latest edit, which you graciously destroyed, I even let a glimpse of Abu Nimer stand in a case where he seemed reliable and informative to me.

I removed Ceaser Farah (another misspelled name) because he fell into the Deuteronomy issue about which there is no consensus to include it.

Hossein Nasr I removed, that is, I removed a superfluous quote from Britannica. Britannica! We really do not need to quote another general encyclopedia. Furthermore, the way he was included was nonsense: Nasr's "Muhammad discovered" was contrast with Muslim tradition attributing such a discovery to "Gabriel". Actually, it doesn't. The decision to attack the BQ was attributed to "Gabriel" in tradition, not any discovery about wrongdoing by the BQ.

As for Mahmoud Ayoub and Handwörterbuch des Islam, I am not removing the content that's relevant to the article. That's my dispute with Devotus, who seems unwilling or unable to clearly explain how the quotes relate to the "no model" statement. "How" and not "that". He merely repeats that they do.

As you see I have good reason for each any every of my edits. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 says "I never removed ...Tariq Ramadan..." and then says "I removed some content referenced to some these (Ramadan...". Essentially a contradiction. Make up your mind Str1977, did you remove atleast some content sourced to him or not?

"small things that were not actually needed" Sure they are needed. And if you think these things are "small", then I can remove things under the same pretext.

"controversial on this talk page" For the Qurayza choosing Sa'd we have clear consensus. For Deuteronomy, we have no consensus yet to remove or include. But atleast we have scholarly consensus on both issues.

"I did removed Abu-Nimer", "I even let a glimpse of Abu Nimer stand in a case where he seemed reliable and informative to me." Ok so do you think Abu-Nimer is reliable enough to comment here or not? Make up your mind.

"Furthermore, the way he was included was nonsense..." I understand that Nasr's statements don't agree with your OR. BUt that is no reason to remove him.

Finally, I still stand very strongly behind my list of scholars that you removed, despite your unclear statements.Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

BS, you claimed that I removed scholars. To me that means I removed all of their contributions. I never did this to any. I always had a good reason for removing - or changing - a particular, IMHO problematic passage.

"Sure they are needed." - Yes, for pushing your POV.

"And if you think these things are "small", then I can remove things under the same pretext." - Well, you do.

"For the Qurayza choosing Sa'd we have clear consensus." - Nonsense. Even Shell says that you do not have consensus.

"Ok so do you think Abu-Nimer is reliable enough to comment here or not? Make up your mind." - As I have a mind to make up I am not bound to robotically decide whether AN is reliable and then include his every blurb. He is reliable in his field, but not beyond it. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure OR is no reason to remove Nasr. But that was not my reason to remove him. Your comments are made in bad faith ... and you think there can be any informal mediation with someone that makes such statements? I am sick of it!

I know. And you stand very very strongly on the extrem POV you are pushing. My statements are not unclear but reasonable and nuanced. You mistake nuance (something your edits never contained) with for a lack of clarity. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said you removed "all thier contributions". What you removed is information sourced to the scholars that you apparently don't like. In doing so, the article is selectively quoting POVs from the scholars.

"Yes, for pushing your POV." I'm not sure what that means, considering that according to WP:NPOV, "all sources have biases". Thus, yes, any source has a bias.

"Well, you do." As of yet can you point to the soruced information I've removed? If not, i aks you to take your accusation back.

"Even Shell says that you do not have consensus." I don't see anything in the section that suggests that. Perhaps, I'm missing something?

Is Abu-Nimer reliable for facts of 7th century Arabia? Please answer this once you've made up your mind.

Actually your reason for removing Nasr was ambiguous. I've assumed it's because you disagreed with him. However, it should be noted, you haven't cited any policy before removing him.

' extrem POV you are pushing" all the statements I add are sourced to scholars. If you think the views of Watt, Stillman, Ramadan, Peterson Hashmi etc. are "extreme" then there is nothing I can do about it. These scholars are pretty maisntream.Bless sins (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I already explained to you that Abu Nimer is no historian and is per se not reliable for facts. He however is a scholar on conflict resolution and is reliable in that regard. Actually, since Khaduri says almost verbatim what Abu Nimer says, I don't see why you have to fight so urgently about Abu Nimer.

I removed Nasr because he is not needed. He basically says nothing that others don't say. If you really insist we can add him as a ref next to his information already included.

It is not the scholars that are the problem (BTW Ramadan is certainly not "maisntream") but the way they are used. I already explained that to you. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok so you agree he is a scholar on "conflict resolution"? Do you also agree that the Qurayza were ina "conflict" with the Muslims?

"He basically says nothing that others don't say." I don't see the view that Muhammad besieged the Qurayza because he discovered Qurayza's activities during the battle.

I assert that I have correctly quoted the scholars. Unless, you are alleging misquotes (in which case you need to provide evidence), "the way they are used" is the same as what their views are. that might appear "extreme" to you, but's that what the scholars indeed say. Finally, it was agreed above that Ramadan is a reliable source, and since relaible sources are mainstream, the conclusion follows.Bless sins (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

He is a scholar on models of conflict resolution. Consider: A political scientist knows all about how politics work but is not neccessarily an expert on politics of the 12th century. And given that Abu Nimer is used for two sentences, one ("arabian customs") I'd allow and the other ("chosen by them") identical to what Khaduri says - why fight about Abu Nimer? (If it makes you happy, I'd allow him as an additional ref).

In a much broader way, our article outlines that Muhammad heard about negotiations, send that man to influence the BQ and the besiegers etc.

Again, you are mistaking an WP article for a quote farm. It is not merely the words that are quoted but also what is left out, where quotes are placed, how they are linked with each other (a recent example is "While Watt ...")

Re Ramadan: you are mistaken. RS means merely that they are reliable for what they say. Mainstream is something else. If only mainstream sources were reliable, minority views would have no place here. WP would be a much thinner encyclopedia. Probably whole articles would be missing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins, can you clarify something? Are you saying that this scholar is reliable in this area of history only because its about a conflict? Does that mean that this gentleman is not a historian? On the reliable sources noticeboard, you didn't give any information about how you wanted to use the sources, so yes, in general this person might be considered reliable, that doesn't automatically imply that they are reliable for any subject they happen to write about. When dealing with history, one needs to be careful not to lend too much weight to armchair historians and instead, stick with the experts. Shell ^babelfish 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell, first and foremost, in my argument is Abu-Nimer's publisher: Journal of Law and Religion. Using that, I'd say that something published there is a reliable on religion and events surrounding the development of religion. This would make the source reliable on Islam and the life of Muhammad, though not necessarily on 1,400 years of Muslim history.

Secondly, Abu-Nimer is a good source on history of conflict and conflict resolution. Even then, he's probably not a good source on conflicts in (say) ancient China, and his expertise would largely be in the Middle East. And that is what he's being used for: a conflict in the Arabian peninsula.Bless sins (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not replying to the arguments I contradicted ten times. But are you objecting to the way I included Abu Nimer? If not, there is no need to fight this anymore. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)