Talk:Mu'awiya I/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Shia POV

Please, keep shia POV out of the Sunni view section. Enough said.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.211.84 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2007‎ (UTC)

Edit conflict

There has clearly been an edit conflict regarding this article, with a lot of POV being pushed - I think we can all agree on that. Anything unsourced has been removed, and most of the material supported by primary sources has been removed. It's very clear that the material supported by primary sources is:
1. Copy-pasted from Sunni-Shi'a debate websites, and
2. Being used to support certain viewpoints, not report the facts.
Any information that was accurate can be replaced with sources, and it shouldn't be a problem. If secondary, mainstream sources cannot be found, then said material ought not be in such a controversial article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all where do you go DELETING entire sections with CITED material because you think it is POV pushing. Uncited entries, other WP editors can understand. But you deleted CITED sources which define the subject of this article. I am RESTORING the Shia view section. And if you have a problem with it, we will bring it straight to the WP administrators. I am also going to reinstate some of my CITED entries. And if you delete them again without discussing it with me, I will REINSTATE it again. To avoid this type of unwanted, un-collaborative, and uncooperative spirit, discuss it first. What I deleted were a lot of redundant and even duplicated material in the article. I am displeased with some of your deletions of cited material which I entered; it was a considerable amount of my effort. When you speak of POV pushing, there is essentially none. It is presenting a historical subject as is perceived by Classical Sunni literature, Shia literature, and Salafi/Wahhabi (or Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced) REVISIONISTS. Between user Johnleeds1 and myself, there was considerable discussion on this Talk Page (as is evident) before we commenced to expand on this article. And you just come in out of the blue and start deleting CITED sources as well without even being involved in any of our discussions. Scrolling up earlier in this Talk Page, you spoke of me "betraying" a POV, but you have carefully left a few UNCITED paragraphs/sub-paragraphs which may fit in with your possible POV. You have deleted DOZENS of CITED sources and yet left some UNCITED sources yourself. As I stated earlier, to avoid an all-out edit war between WP editors, please discuss points which should be for inclusion or deletion. And who are you to decide what the "facts" are ? If the sources are cited from traditional Islamic literature or not, they are technically ALL SECONDARY sources as they are multiply sampled material written two to three hundred years after the historical events. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible please for you to add the various old books you are citing to the references section, giving information such as publisher, date of publication and (if not in English) the language book being cited is in. You had me do this with some citations you did not understand. So I cannot see any objection to you being asked to do the same. In the case of books that were written about a thousand years ago, the date we need is the date of publication of the edition you are citing.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I did not "have you" do anything. I already mention that earlier. I brought attention to authors' names being listed but NO BOOKS were listed. Significantly, you haven't answered any of my concerns of your double standard toward my efforts, when you showed surprising flexibility to user Johnleeds1 when he entered DOZENS of UNCITED material. And you also kept interjecting everytime I tried to contribute to this article, as well as another one (eg., Yazid I). You cannot deny all the instances which I have illustrated in this Talk Page. Another prime example of this is just now: WP user MezzoMezzo DELETED a considerable amount of defining material with CITED REFERENCES (some of which were in this article page for a few years)...And yet you did not comment on why those CITED entries were deleted. I do not feel that you are an impartial WP editor, as you have revealed both partiality toward one WP editor over another, as well as partiality toward the historical subject of this article...Which I have clearly illustrated. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think that I have misbehaved the place to discuss this is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not here.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, my comment on the deletion of the material was to ask that details be provided of the books being cited. If editors have really consulted the sources claimed, they should be able to provide this. If they have merely culled impressive-looking citations from forum websites, they may find this difficult, because they will have no idea what the books actually are.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't apply to me, nor does it mean anything to me. And where do you get off alleging that WP editors have "merely culled impressive-looking citations from forum websites..." Are you possibly referring to editors like Johnleeds1 who inserted DOZENS of citations without even citing them ? Either way, it doesn't apply to me, as such a comment directed to me personally will be taken with serious offense. I have now decided that I will proceed and lodge a complaint against you in ANI. And please do not offer me anymore unsolicited advice as to where to discuss matters here on WP. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

First Flagrantdelicto, please review WP:OWN as there seems to be a serious issue with that here; I am referring to the comment: "if you delete them again without discussing it with me, I will REINSTATE it again." It's not about discussing it with you or going against you personally; this is a community effort.

Secondly, regarding your sources, then you haven't properly cited them per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Like Toddy said, name, author and page number is common on Muslim polemical discussion forums during flame wars. Specifically, I am already finding some of your quoted sources at the following two polemical websites, basically copy-pasted

• Here, and

• here.

Until you can bring the requested information on these sources per Wikipedia:Citing sources, I will have to remove those contested sources you inserted per my concern regarding Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you have read the sources, then it will be time consuming to look up the ISBN numbers, publishers, editions and so forth, but it will absolutely improve the article and Wikipedia as a whole, as well as ending this conflict once and for all.

What I am asking you for is based on site policy, please understand that this effort is to improve the site and help inform the readers accurately. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no copy-pasting involved, so where do you go off and make such rather offensive accusations ? The historical quotes or ahadith from literary sources about any early Islamic figures are widely known by both students and scholars alike of Islamic studies. Many of these have been circulating for years in website discussions and blogs as well. Because these cited sources and their works are so well known, it is not surprising that they are brought up and posted on the internet. I myself have attached links to digital libraries, scanned books, and uploaded pdf's of a few of the materials which I have cited. Consequently, you can post all the links you want, but they mean nothing to me or to what I have cited. Apparently, it seems you are well aware of such websites and have just proven it. I have never posted any links to such websites as this Shiapen. Btw, I am a SUNNI, not a Shi'ite. Make a mental note of it. Also, don't go into any WP guideline bureacracy with me. You are a POV pusher who appears to be manipulating WP guideline policies to what you deem "neutrality". If you do have pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced ideology, admit it and don't evoke words like "neutrality". If you are an editor of this page, then you allowed your friend Johnleeds1 to insert dozens of uncited edits which met with your own POV. You did not object to it then. When I presented the genuine SUNNI perception from classical literature regarding Caliph Muawiyah I, then you (and also Toddy1) suddenly bring up WP guideline policies. This is a clear double standard and is unacceptable. I have already gotten kudos from other WP editors for my efforts in these articles, so my contributions are indeed seen as an improvement to this article (as well as others). There is nothing contested here. The sources have been cited and that is that. And where do you suddenly come out of the blue and question and accuse me of copy-pasting from polemical websites ? You essentially seem to be evoking the very same thing as Toddy1, only Toddy1 is applying subtle implication, while your are coming out and openly accusing a fellow WP editor. In looking through your Talk Page, I observed that you are the subject of a rather recent discussion on ANI. If you want to add to that, I will be more than willing to oblige.

Here is an actual copy-paste from my own personal WP Talk Page from your friend Johnleeds1:

I was talking to MezzoMezzo about this and he said:

I agree with your latest comment wholeheartedly, but since it isn't directly related to Sunni Islam I thought I would respond here. Yes, the views of early jurists concur quite a bit and they were less prone to being influence by political movements than modern Muslim clerics. And yes, after observing Islam-related articles on Wikipedia for around six years now, I do agree with your statement that most Islam-related articles are either Muslims pushing a pro-Islam political agenda, Christian pushing an anti-Islam agenda or Muslim sects bickering among one another over who's right and who's wrong. Islam-related articles are sorely in need of some objective contributions which aim simply to provide the readers with information, not to convince them of a certain viewpoint.The difficult, of course, is how that should be done. These six years have also taught me that fighting against this lack of neutrality will make you the target of insults, slurs, stalking and reporting you falsely to moderators for things you didn't do. If you're willing to face all that then perhaps there is some kind of task force on Wikipedia we could join and focus on improving articles one by one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When I put up the diagram and MezzoMezzo said:

Ha ha, yes, everything you've found is true. If you go far back enough, you will ultimately find the leaders of madhhabs having studied with the same chain of teachers going back to Sahaba. It's a startling revelation, especially considering that hundreds of years later, people claiming to follow those madhhabs would later persecute one another. Have you considered putting this diagram in your sandbox and seeing how it would work and where it would be appropriate? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see, it's starting to dawn on you now. "It" being the early connections between all the Muslim schools of though, "it" being that thing which hasn't dawned on most Muslims. I remember when I discovered that too; realizing "it" is like a blind man suddenly being able to see. It's fascinating, isn't it?

Anyway, yes, what you're saying is true. There is a lot of misinformation about Islam on Wikipedia, but that is in part due to misinformation on Islam both in the West and in Muslim countries, and even Western societies and Muslim societies. The most objective research you will find is usually from non-Muslim institutions like Brill Publishers or McGill University.

MezzoMezzo was right. May be I should start looking at the Christianity articles. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Now I myself wasn't too thrilled at having a conversation between you and Johnleeds1 posted on my own personal WP Talk Page. As it really is irrelevant to me, and I don't care one way or the other about your mutual discussions. They mean nothing to me. But it does clearly display a mutual friendship between yourself and Johnleeds1. So is it surprising or not that when Johnleeds1 almost inundated the Muawiyah I article with UNCITED material, you were mute for the most part, as he was clearly pushing your shared POV. It is my stance on the Muawiyah I article which genuinely represents neutrality and a three dimensional perspective: The classical SUNNI literature, the Shi'ite literature, and even the Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced revisionism. As for user Johnleeds1, we had our mutual differences in our views and some attrition even. However, I would certainly like to think that we amicably resolved them and found common ground on how to define the subject of this article in a cooperative, collaborative manner. This is clearly evident in our discussions in this very Talk Page. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the very obvious personal attacks here and ask you directly: did you read this and this?

The material you're posting is copy pasted from those two Shi'a polemical sites. I'm specifically talking about the "citations" you're providing. There is also copy pasting from:

• This Shi'ite polemical blog.
• Another post from the same blog.
• This pro-Shi'ite blog post dated from December 14th, 2011 which also matches this version of this very article from ten days later that year.
• This Sunni-Shi'ite debate blog post from 2009, though instead of copy paste of all sources at once it contains the same exact sources with more detail.
• This Sunni polemical blog post from 2010.
• This discussion post on a Sunni-Shi'ite debate forum.

I'm going to be up front here. In light of all this, I suspect that you never read any of these sources and are just piecing them together from polemical debate blogs. Hence it is copy paste and you should stop edit warring to defend it until you can properly cite these claims. If you want help, then I and I'm sure others will help facilitate that. But don't edit war to support clear copy paste violations. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

lol...You must possibly have me mistaken for your friend Johnleeds1 or someone else entirely. I have NEVER even been to these sites which you provided the links to...Obviously, you do as you have provided the links to them. I did not initiate an edit war. You did. Your accusation that I have never read any of these materials is an offensive one. And I could care less what you suspect. Who exactly are you to accuse any WP editor ? I will be equally blunt: You give the clear impression that you are a latent pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi POV pusher who is manipulating WP guidelines and policies to impose your latent POV. I already stated that I did not desire any edit war, but you initiated it. I have since requested Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider to mediate in this article. Until then, I would suggest you not delete any of the CITED material; the majority of which were not even my contributions, but others. And I have not made any personal attacks. It is you who initiated attrition in stating that I "betrayed" a POV. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Please avoid mockery and sarcasm in comments aimed at other editors; see WP:CIVIL.

2. Can you please provide diffs to show where I engaged in an edit war?

3. You did the right thing by seeking a third opinion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Can you please avoid making unfounded, unjust accusations out of the blue. It is not really civil, either; see (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety in WP:CIVIL.

2. Undid revision specifically after I had cautioned you that I would reinstate CITED entries, if you

you deleted them again. I also pre-advised that I did not want to engage in an edit war, nor did I desire an unwanted, un-collaborative, or uncooperative atmosphere. You seemed to have not read my good faith advisement in this matter. Just scroll up this page and it is rather self-evident what I pre-advised.

3. I know I did the proper thing seeking a third opinion, as both you and Toddy1 are unfairly assuming the same (virtual) positions. It is rather coincidental. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)09:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I will ensure that I avoid doing so.

2. You don't seem to understand WP:WAR or WP:OWN. What I did isn't edit warring because I provided new information on the talk page. It's possible that I am wrong, but that isn't edit warring. I assumed that your threat to reinstate the material meant that if I removed it without a valid justification. If you mean that you will reinstate them no matter what, and that your mind can't be changed, then you're violating both of the above policies. I hope that isn't the case and perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent.

3. Why are our positions unfair? Is this about your issue with Johnleeds? Look, I didn't pay real attention to any of this until yesterday; just look at the time stamp for my edit. I don't know exactly what your problem with him is. If he or anybody else (even my own self) added material which is unsourced or improperly sourced, then that should be deleted as well. My lack of attention is due to a lack of knowledge of what exactly is going on between you and him, not because I'm simply against you at all costs. That isn't the case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So you complained to WP Admin Dianaa that I am out of control. You accuse me of copy-pasting entries in this article and further accuse me of not reading any of the books I cited. Where do you come across with such wild accusations and assumptions (?) If anything, your actions give the impression of someone who is out of control. Perhaps you should have re-evaluated this WP policy--(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. See WP:CIVIL.

As for edit warring, you should go back and READ what I stated in regards to it. I clearly stated that you should discuss issues regarding the article before going into an edit frenzy and deleting mostly CITED contributions to this article.

Here, you also admit to both a lack of attention and a lack of knowledge as to what transpired in the exchanges between Johnleeds1 and I. Perhaps you should have READ the entire exchange in this Talk Page and assimilated all of it before reacting the way you did by deleting material which involved considerable effort on my part, as well as Johnleeds1. Johnleeds1 and myself have since reached a mutual understanding and have cooperated in improving this article. Whatever differences of perspectives we had, I think for the most part have been resolved. This can be evidenced in the last exchanges between myself and Johnleeds1.

I shall offer you one valuable piece of advice: Before you jump to conclusions, take the time to READ with careful attention all that has transpired in this very Talk Page from top to bottom.--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to know what the conflict was between you and Johnleeds1 was because my fundamental point is WP:RS and Wikipedia:Copy-paste. I don't care who did or said what at this point; there is material here copied and pasted from blog sites. It doesn't matter to me who put it in.

As for edit warring then this is a blatantly false claim. My first edit to the article was at 00:08, 16 June 2013 and my first explanation on the talk page was at 00:08, 16 June 2013 as well. My next edit to the article after your reversions was at 00:25, 17 June 2013, after my explanation on the talk page at 00:17, 17 June 2013.

But you know what? I'm tired of your bad attitude with other editors. You think I'm edit warring? Go report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. No, really. Stop posting angry messages and go report me if what you're saying it true.

I contacted User: Diannaa about the conduct issues and User:Faizhaider contacted User:MatthewVanitas, User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Doc Tropics about the content issues. The issue will get sorted out one way or another with the help of outside mediators. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, my supposed or perceived "bad attitude" toward other WP editors is none of your business. Don't mix up your issues with someone else's. If those supposed "other" WP editors feel this way, they can defend themselves. I do have some WP editors who have offered me thanks for my contributions to this article, as well as other articles. And I don't appreciate your description of me having a "bad attitude", as it is not at all the case. You also stated to WP Admin that I had "outbursts"...lol Now that is a complete falsehood, and she will observe this if and when she reviews the entire, lengthy exchanges in this Talk Page (as well as my personal Talk Page). And you still don't understand the context in which I applied the term "edit warring" toward you. You apparently did not (either) comprehend or properly read my responses. Furthermore, researching someone’s past editorial conflict, and then applying some of the differences from that particular conflict to a current situation which is not at all related in terms of the way this particular issue is being approached, is counter-productive. And the WP Admin will most probably see right through such tactics. It seems that both of you WP editors (MezzoMezzo and Toddy1) give the impression that you two are collaborating in a campaign of unfair accusations (and/or concerns) toward me. The question that should be sincerely asked by the two of you is whether such a practice is ethical (?) The reason why I include the both of you is because it is obvious that you two are almost precisely echoing or mirroring each other’s concerns. And I don't need to report you, since you already brought attention to yourself when you went and cried to WP admin Diannaa. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been very busy the last few days and therefore did not get a chance to respond. The very fact that you all spend so much time debating shows that you all want to improve this article and get to the truth. One option is to take a break from this article for a week or two and think about how it needs to be structured. That is what I have done. I have all the references for all the content I added, but I felt that I needed to take a break to think about how it needs to be structured. There is also a lot of early non Muslims literature about that period that I am currently going through to get a more 3 dimensional understanding. Muawiyah is a very complex character, living in a very complex time, in a very complex environment, in the Middle East of that period where only a few years earlier many old empires existed and they were warring one another for centuries. Therefore people had their nationalistic and tribal loyalties. What people say about him in the early books depends on during what stage of his life they said it. It also depends on who the author was and where he lived and when. One option is to break this article into multiple stages, covering the different stages of his life. May be something like this

Stage 1 Early life and family Stage 2 After his conversion to Islam Stage 3 During the time of Muhammad and Abu Bakr (he served under his brother who was also called Yazid) Stage 4 Under Umar (During the time of Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar he was restricted) Stage 5 Governor of Syria and organisational and diplomatic skills with the Romans Stage 5 Under Uthman (With Marwan as a secretary) and the battle of the Mast Stage 6 Under Ali's Calaphat Stage 8 The peace treaty with Hassan Stage 9 After the peace treaty with Hassan (After the first civil war people wanted peace). Stage 10 Expansion of the state and military achievements Stage 11 His appointment of his son as the next Caliph (People in Madina did not like Yazid).

Modern Non Muslim Literature Early Non Muslim Literature Salafi Literature Early Sunni Literature From Madina Early Sunni Literature From Iraq Early Sunni Literature From Iran Early Shia Literature

These are just ideas. You think about how you want it to be structured too. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your idea is a comprehensive one Johnleeds, which would ultimately build an even stronger article. I have to be honest though, I'm not particularly interested in Muawiyah, as complex and contentious as his life was. My main concern right now is that we have a clear Wikipedia:Copy-paste violation. If you guys do want help with the comprehensive edits then I will stay on board but I really feel that the fact that many of the sources for the more contentious material here is supported by a series of unacceptable, improper citations copy-pasted from polemical debate blogs needs to be addressed before we move on. Once those are out, going through all the literature would be quicker and easier, I think. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1…Lol. My response to you just got pushed out in an edit conflict. With my current PC being so slow, it took some time to gather all of my thoughts and re-post it here. Anyway, it is sound advice to take a break to clear the mind. I agree that Caliph Muawiyah I has a three dimensional persona: The ambivalent persona of Old School or classical Sunni literature; the (unanimously) adverse persona from Shi’ite literature; and the (unanimously) heroic persona of Salafi/Wahhabi revisionist modern literature. This article, compared to the state it was previously in, now certainly approaches that three dimensionalism. My initiative in organizing it aimed for this three dimensionalism. Also, your entries contributed a sizable share in this initiative. Being Old School Sunni, I find it unacceptable that in so many WP Islamic articles, classical Sunni literature is being misleadingly represented as Shi’ite literature, while our Sunni Imams are being used as sources for Shi’ite perspectives. Equally misleading is the Salafi/Wahhabi POV being represented as SUNNI views. Anyone who is a student or scholar of classical or Old School SUNNI literature knows what has been recorded regarding the Umayyads (particularly the caliphs Muawiyah, Yazid, and Marwan). I was hard pressed in finding any Old School Sunni WP editors that contributed to this article (and Yazid I as well), so I sought mediation from an acknowledged Shi’ite WP editor in Mohd. Faiz Haider. The outcome should be interesting. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this by User:Faizhaider. It's hard to read due to the long posts and the amount of complaining at each other. I'm glad that the two main people involved have agreed to take a break in editing it for a while. You both need to lay out the problems, including differences, in a more concise way. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not just a break; I opened a thread at WP:ANI. During the past three days, even after Faizhaider contacted other mediators, Flagrantedelicto continued the highest volume of insults, incivility and personal attacks I've ever seen in such a short period of time. Taken all together, I don't think we can progress in the content dispute before the conduct dispute is addressed - every comment this person makes here and even on other talk pages seems to include some sort of rudeness. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather. Hi there. Let me introduce myself. My username is Flagrantedelicto. I can assure you that there is a lot of contradictions in the feedback I have received for my efforts and contribution to this article. I have received compliments from Johnleeds1 at my editorial efforts, as well as even Toddy1, of whom I have raised some definite concerns (and who also has presented rather puzzling and contradictory responses and behavior in this article). This you can scroll up and view for yourself. MezzoMezzo seems to be overreacting or is ultra-sensitive. During the past month, while myself and Johnleeds1 were sorting out our difference of perspectives, there was absolutely no activity in this article or article Talk Page by MezzoMezzo. All of a sudden, this user's appearance and abrupt DELETIONS of mostly CITED material (including an entire defining seciton, the Shia View) came about in an cooperative, uncollaborative manner. This editor didn't engage in our lenghty discussions, but just came in and arbitrarily deleted considerable material which took hours of effort to include. Showing practically no respect or consideration at the lenghty efforts put into this article by myself and Johnleeds1. And then this editor shifts gears and begins to focus on what this editor charged as "bad behavior". I formally request of you to help place this article under Protected status until the dispute is resolved. Also, if you very carefully read the lengthy exchanges, you will see contradictions in a few of the comments by MezzoMezzo and Toddy1. I am willing to engage in discussion with MezzoMezzo, but it is a mild challenge due to this editor's unfounded accusations of copy-pasting. MezzoMezzo stated that there were copy-pastes in the Shia View section, when that section has no copy-pastes but has been there for a few years now with amply CITED references. This is just one of the inconsistencies in MezzoMezzo's argument. I certainly welcome neutral and impartial mediation. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather- Here are examples of who actually initiated the "incivility" in our discussion here in this Talk Page. These are the rather Uncivil remarks by MezzoMezzo toward me:

all you did here was go into a rant about your own personal viewpoints on the subject,

But you know what? I'm tired of your bad attitude with other editors.

And then MezzoMezzo admitted that he/she was not aware of the lengthy discussions between Johnleeds1 and myself. My dissatisfaction with Johnleeds1 is that he inundated this article with uncited entries (long before I restructured-NOT deleted any material of this article, which I only did later to uncited sources). All you have to do is go back and check the edit history to verify this. This article had dozens of sub-paragraphs that were entered by Johnleeds1 which were totally uncited. Toddy1 was surprisingly flexible about this, but with me, kept requesting even more detailed info than already provided to my entries which were all cited with references. These double standards are clearly evident and undeniable. And I voiced my CONCERNS regarding them, not accusations. And then MezzoMezzo suddenly turns up and DELETES considerable material which took quite an effort on my part to enter. MezzoMezzo also deleted the entire Shia View section of which I had no participation in (as I am SUNNI). The Shia View section was the product of other WP editors' efforts which were amply cited with references. MezzoMezzo did not participate in any of the lengthy discussions between myself and Johnleeds1 and just suddenly appears without having any awareness of what the content of our discussions were about. This statement by MezzoMezzo illustrates this:

Look, I didn't pay real attention to any of this until yesterday;

Furthermore, in poor taste, the rather unethical editorial actions taken by MezzoMezzo was to research my past conflict (back in January 2013) in another WP article altogether and bring the concerns (even the exact verbiage) into the issues with this article. My approach in the other article which neither MezzoMezzo or Toddy1 or Johnleeds1 were involved in was different. The dispute was about Marc Antony's birthdate...And that is all. And it in no way has anything to do with this article, nor the manner in which I conducted myself here. Not that I ever admitted to unfavorable conduct in that other article dispute. The editor in that article debate initiated unpleasantries by calling me "ignorant" and kept up a condescending tone to which I responded. That is why the WP Admin (Dianaa) did nothing after I responded with these facts (without mincing words to her in my response). MezzoMezzo in his ANI notice replicated my response to WP Admin Dianaa. What occurred in that conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the issues in this conflict. This is really unethical editorial practice by MezzoMezzo.

As for my dispute with Johnleeds1, he too accused of me of a couple of things I never stated. But at least Johnleeds1 realized this and apologized to me more than once regarding his mistake. Johnleeds1 mistook his debate with someone else entirely in another WP article altogether, then accused me of something the other WP user supposedly stated. After realizing his mistake, Johnleeds1 apologized. And my disagreements with Johnleeds1 were resolved amicably. You can view this yourself in both my personal Talk Page and here in this Talk Page. Johnleeds1 even complimented my efforts and agreed with some of the points I brought up to him. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. We need to be able to verify information on Wikipedia. That is why we ask for citations, and why we ask that citations are sufficiently specific for other editors to be able to check the claimed facts. If you have read the books you are citing, this will be a lot less work that writing all these walls of largely irrelevant text on the talk page.

If you have complaints about other editors, please do not write them here. Instead, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Three solid days of bullying, insults and incivility by User:Flagrantedelicto.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to stop advising me on WP policies and guidelines and let the mediation of CambridgeBayWeather run its course. You and MezzoMezzo are on this campaign to involve a whole lot of people in this issue and somehow get me blocked. MezzoMezzo goes to Someguy1221 and is trying to get that editor involved. Both of you have showed such pettiness that it is truly surprising. Rather than engaging in a serious discussion of coming to an understanding, you two are behaving in a very hostile manner, and then falsely charge me with bullying. Just keep up with this behavior and you two might end up raising serious concerns about your own credibility. You still haven't answered as to why you allowed Johnleeds1 to inundate this aritlce with literally dozens of UNSOURCED sub-paragraphs and did not question him to provide sources in the manner which you did me. Eventually, Johnleeds1 cited some of his sources, but he was not questioned by you as to whether he read those books or not. And Johnleeds1 took his time in citing the sources which he did. He still didn't cite all of his entries of which a few are still present in the article now (some other uncited entries of his ended up being deleted by MezzoMezzo, and eventually, just a few by me). You also haven't answered my concerns about incessantly questioning me at almost every sincere effort I made to improve this article, when I aimed for a more comprehensive and accurate historical presentation of the subject. You can keep going on and on about verification, but the sources have already been cited. And at least have the courtesy to allow fellow WP editor CambridgeBayWeather to mediate in this matter. And btw, which Toddy1 should I pay more attention to (?) The one who responded just above, or the one who also stated the following to me in this very Talk Page (?):

When people see the generally good work you do on Wikipedia, and notice in your good work some small errors in wording, and fix it for you... That is called helping you.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are a good editor and are of great value to Wikipedia. But please be more self-aware, and more tolerant of views you do not share.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

--Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

First off I am not protecting the article. I must have edited this in the past so if you want it protected then go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I think this section should be closed and a new section started laying out exactly what each editor sees is wrong with the content (not the other editors). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

a new section started laying out exactly what each editor sees is wrong with the content

• Toddy's view. A lot of what seems to be good work has been done on this article and the related article on Yazid I. A lot of it has what look like good citations. However some of the citations are unclear. For example: "Tadhirathul Khawwas, p. 64; Muruj al Dhahab, vol. 3, p. 420; Tarikh ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p. 191; Tarikh Kamil, vol. 3, p. 179; Tarikh Tabari, English trans., vol. 18, pp. 144-146; Habib al Sayyar, vol. 1, pp. 72; Tabaqat al Kubra, vol. 6, pp. 213", or "Al-Madaini, Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad. Tarikh Al-Khulafah: *Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan." A good way of solving this would be to put the books being cited into a reference section. I would like this to include, the book title as given by the publisher (with English translation in brackets), the name of the author, (the names of translator(s) is optional but useful), the publisher, publication date, edition, ISBN (if any), and the language (if not English). The citations themselves should give page numbers. In the longer term, it would be nice if the citations used a common format, giving the name of the author, the title, and the page numbers (and if several editions are being cited, then the edition). I am certain that other improvements are desirable, but it is hard to make them if we cannot verify what is there already.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mezzo's view. Even if we can find proper publisher information, I don't think the page numbers given are trustworthy. Most of these supposed sources are copy-pasted from a number of polemical inter-Muslim debate blogs and forums. To keep things short, here's just what I found by Googling again: blog, blog and forum. Really, take a look at the authors, titles and page numbers; it's the same. Keeping them here when we know they're just borrowed from blogs and forums is a violation of Wikipedia:Copy-paste and a hardcore fail of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Let's just start over by looking up new sources on Google Books. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, just realized something else...a huge portion of this material is also found on this blog post from 2013 - much later than when it was put here on Wikipedia - and has been independently published by the blogs owner via CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform in 2012. It's self-published and obviously not reliable, yet the book was published at least a year after most of this stuff was put on Wikipedia. Not sure if that indicates any funny business back in 2011, but it does raise even more interesting questions about just where exactly these supposed citations came from. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am confused. If the blog was published AFTER the same material appeared on Wikipedia, this suggests that the blog copied from Wikipedia, not the other way round. Have I misunderstood what you meant to say?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused and posted it here as I just started searching this stuff again, but I suppose it doesn't mean much for the last one. The stuff from my first paragraph, however, is from 2009 and 2010, which is why I think this is copy paste. Even so, we're looking at a huge Wikipedia:Verifiability violation here - readers have no way of verifying the info. Perhaps we can get the publisher info like you suggested, but only after returning to something like Google Books and providing links just to be sure that the citations are accurate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Flagrantedelicto's view. The unwarranted conjecture that the cited entries in this article were copy-pasted from other websites is baseless. The Classical Islamic authors and their passages and literary works are well known. Consequently, it is no surprise that they are probably brought up again and again in Islamic websites in theological discussions. Just because well known material is documented and reprised over and over again in Islamic websites does not automatically mean that the material here on Wikipedia is copy-pasted. Take for example Biblical verses. They are quoted time and again and are reproduced all over the place. Would Biblical passages be considered copy-pasted material (?) Then why the seeming different set of standards when involving Islamic literature (?) If neither of the other two WP editors can read, write or understand Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi, then they are not as academically qualified to judge or evaluate much of the Classical Islamic literature being cited as reference. It almost evokes an occidental / Western cultural imposition of having superior knowledge of Near Eastern culture and society above someone who is native to oriental/Near Eastern culture when neither Toddy1, nor MezzoMezzo are of Near Eastern ethnicity. For example, even if I had basic knowledge of Chinese culture and society and became a Confucianist (or was a student of Confucianism), I would still defer to native Chinese in presenting their literary history and not impose my foreign standards upon their understanding of Chinese culture and society. What I am perceiving here are editors who are certainly not as familiar with the sensitivities of Near Eastern culture and society as almost any native Near Easterner (like myself), impose their Western values and standards on a subject matter which they were not culturally raised with. This could be perceived as a form of condescension toward any WP editor who was raised in Near Eastern society and has that sociological understanding of Near Eastern sensitivities, etiquette, and protocol. The current state of this article is so much more improved than previously. I like it as it is now. The article is displaying a three-dimensional view of its subject from Classical Sunni literature, Shi'ite literature, and more modern revisionist literature of Salafi persuasion. All three perspectives are represented in the article in its current state. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You were asked to comment on what is wrong with the article, not what is wrong with the other editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to remind me what I should or should not do. That is not your function. Please remember that. CBW can address this as the requested mediator, not you. I would also like Faiz Haider to participate, as well. Your opinion is not superior to mine because you are of Western culture. That is the impression I am getting from you and MezzoMezzo. Also, the article did not materialize by itself. It is the work of editors. If the editors do not have a comprehensive understanding of Near Eastern culture, society, religion, and the LANGUAGES of Islamic literature, then it comes across as an imposition of Western standards and values upon the interpretation of Near Eastern culture, society, and theology. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fluent in Arabic and my grammar and syntax are better than those of most native speakers. I worked in the Mideast for a few years know the culture. Regardless, your accusations are a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Stop accusing us of imposing this or that and focus on the content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If I take your claim in good faith, then I will ask you to prove it. Is it possible that because you may not be able to read Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu literature, that you are getting so upset about Classical Islamic literature which you may not really be familiar with (?) I will openly debate you (right here in the WP Talk Page) regarding any Classical Islamic author and the content and thesis and exegeses of their works to truly understand what level of academic knowledge you really have in Classical Islamic studies. Also, the bulk of Classical Islamic literature were not written only in Arabic but also in Farsi and later Turkish and Urdu. You make the claim that you have lived in the "Mideast" for years, yet you do not evoke any of the social protocol or sensitivities of Near Eastern culture. It is properly Near Eastern, not Middle Eastern, btw. Also, you may have lived in the "Mideast" but that means nothing. I have travelled extensively throughout the Arabian Peninsula and have come across many Westerners there who have lived there for years. However, many of them have evoked an arrogance and condescension toward people of the Near East which I have personally experienced. So you may have lived in the Mideast, that still doesn't mean you think and act like a "Mideasterner". Your own responses here in WP and the comment about "the religion card" to me elsewhere clearly evokes non-Near Eastern sensitivity. You have also not evoked the proper respect most Near Easterners naturally express. For example, Faiz Haider addressed me with Salaam and so did I toward him. Your entire demeanor comes across as rather condescending and is not evoking Near Eastern sensitivity at all, sorry to say. And you are not being accused, but concerns regarding social protocol and etiquette have the right to be raised. Your own condescending tone has no right to be imposed upon others in what they should or should not do. This is something I noticed in Toddy1 as well. Maybe neither of you are aware of this, but I am expressing the impression others may get. Just the opening statement of yours evokes this seeming arrogance and condescension toward Near Eastern sensitivity:

I am fluent in Arabic and my grammar and syntax are better than those of most native speakers.

As for the content, I already stated my position: The article now is presented in a three-dimensional, far more comprehensive format. It expresses Classical Sunni, Shi'ite, and Salafi-influenced (modern) revisionist views. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, this has gone back to ad hominem arguents. This is precisely what this section was NOT meant to be.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We have concerns regarding Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Copy-paste, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability violations. If Flagrantedelicto or anyone else can't address those, then we might have grounds to say that this part of the article's revision has been concluded. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither of you have any grounds for anything of that nature. I have openly invited MezzoMezzo to a debate in Islamic literature. It is essential in defining how this article has evolved and can be further improved. This is not an ad hominem at all. If anything, MezzoMezzo's blatant claim:

I am fluent in Arabic and my grammar and syntax are better than those of most native speakers.

Easily qualifies as an ad hominem toward me, not to mention any native speakers of Arabic. This could be easily perceived as really an insult to Near Eastern sensitivity. I would still like to understand if MezzoMezzo's adamant objection are due a the lack of in-depth knowledge of Islamic literature and the Arabic, Farsi, and Urdu languages. This is only a fair proposition. It is not justifiable for someone who really does not understand Classical Islamic literature or its eminent authors to impose their will upon this article. Especially, if this individual is not familiar with Near Eastern culture and has not evoked any of the sensitivity of Near Eastern society and protocol, maybe preferring Western authors on Islamic literature over Classical native authors.

Furthermore, CBW has not responded with a mediation and since CBW requested for a new section to be opened, I would await CBW's feedback. I will also request Faiz Haider to input here, in spite of his open declaration of being of the Shi'ite persuasion; that should not automatically exclude him from offering valuable feedback. I am Old School Sunni so I am well prepared to present defining and informative Classical Sunni literature. I will not find it acceptable if any deletion occurs of the material present in the article, as it is the product of a lot of hard work by myself, many other past WP editors, and also Johnleeds1. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A competition between editors is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; please respond to the policy concerns mentioned. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not about competition. It is about understanding if a self-claimed "superior" Arabic-speaking editor ("over most native Arabic speakers") can truly substantiate such a bold claim. Why the apprehension (?) I am ready to go and welcome an opportunity to present my years of hard work and studies in the field. There is no need to be evasive if you can substantiate your (almost offensive) claim. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing the subject won't work; you and me having a contest doesn't prove what is and isn't violating Wikipedia policies. Concerns regarding Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Copy-paste, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability have been raised. Please respond to these policy based issues and avoid commenting on other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your concerns are unfounded as has been already stated for the umpteenth time. You have just provided links to websites and have proven nothing but your own unjustified suspicions. It wouldn't surprise anyone if you really might not even be able to read or write Arabic. Why are you so reluctant or evasive of an in-depth discussion (not a competition) in Classical Islamic literature (?) Why the apprehension (?) You made this claim: I am fluent in Arabic and my grammar and syntax are better than those of most native speakers. Consequently, I would like to verify it. It is only fair. There is no need to seek cover via manipulation of WP policies. I would like to do this right here and now, this way later on you might recruit a native Arabic speaker (or a seasoned Islamic scholar) and have them assist you. And there would be no way to prove or disprove this in the near future. And please make no mistake that this academic invite (right here and now) is in good faith. Later on, if you decide to change your mind and suddenly agree to an in-depth discussion, I will not take you up on it for the reasons I have just stated. This is not an ad hominem, but a good faith attempted verification of your bold claim. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just few points:

• As per Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright "Facts cannot be copyrighted." And IMO some book on some page contains some text is a fact because we can't reformulate or reword it much e.g. if a medical journal says that "there are 206 bones in adult human" then although it may be copyrighted but because it is a fact we can use the phrase. If a copyrighted article says Quran 1:2 and somebody copies it to WP then its not copyright violation because a fact is being copied.
• As per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_published "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." So if a cited source is not available on Internet then too it may qualify as WP:RS
• As per Wikipedia:Offline_sources "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. In fact, many great sources are only available offline. Don't let that fact scare you away from using them as a source in Wikipedia. Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source." So, if a source is not available on-line then too it can be used.
• As per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." So if some source is being cited then and again then by this policy it is proved that the source is relaible or in other words conforms to WP:RS
• As per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." So, if somebody tries to discredit a source saying that its Salafi/Wahabi or Sunni or Shia, then its not correct.
• As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say." So we should include majority and significant-minority viewpoints to balance the article.
• As per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." So, Primary Sources can be used but with care & to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
• As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. ... Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." So if English sources of equal quality and relevance are not available non-English sources can be used. If somebody provides a translation of such Non-English text from secondary source and somebody doesn't agrees with it then translation from alternative source should be bought and then a consensus may be reached (to include one or both or do way with contentious text, whatever).

Hopefully above extracts of policies related to sources/references/citations clears some air and help in consensus and mutual agreement.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I thank you very much for this information regarding WP policies and guidelines. As I had stated, I am content with the way the article appears in its present state. Both myself and Johnleeds1 have worked hard on bringing it to its current presentation. We certainly had our differences as to some of its contents, but toward the end, we resolved them and collaborated and cooperated in an amicable manner to bring this article to its present state. As I stated a few times already, the historical subject of this article has been presented in a three-dimensional form to represent the three main perspectives: Classical Sunni, Shi'ite, and modern (revisionist) Salafi-influenced views. This represents a balanced, well-rounded historiographical persona of the subject. Any future attempt to delete cited material from this article is really counter-productive to this article. Certainly, more properly balanced (cited) additions toward all three perspectives should be welcomed by anyone. Censorship and deletion of the Shia View section is counter-productive and essentially unacceptable as there are millions of Shi'ite readers of Wikipedia. And I sincerely offer this observation being an Old School Sunni exponent of standard Islamic studies. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So this has once again deteriorated into a lack of assuming good faith on the part of other editors and not just by one editor.

One of the biggest problems that I see is that it appears nobody actually has access to any of the works being cited. Is that correct? Are there any other sources that can be brought forward to cover the material? Remember as Faizhaider correctly points out the sources can be either in the authors original language or a reliable English translation.

The ethnicity of any editor is not important as the sources are what gives us the material and not personal knowledge. At the same time the use of the same sources on other web sites does not render them invalid. Thanks to Faizhaider for pointing out the relevant policies.

If any editor feel there is need for a discussion on classical Islamic authors I would as that it be done on another web site. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If we know what the books are, we can get them. I bought Volume 19 of Tabari's history to answer a question about the Battle of Karbala. The trick is that you have to actually know what the book is. If you know that you can buy it from online bookshops, or borrow from libraries. Some of these books can be found online as well - but again you need to know what the book really is - and also whether it is available in a language you understand.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Between my in-laws and I, we have original Arabic copies of many of the sources listed; many more are available with reliable English translations on Google Books.

I am concerned about the sources being on blogs for another reason. These sources have been here since at least 2011. They've been floating around on Sunni-Shi'a debate blogs and forums since at least 2009. My first girlfriend after converting was Shi'ite, and one thing I learned is that teenage and twentysomething Sunnis and Shi'as in English-speaking countries are fond of drudging up quotes from the other sects' books as a form of checkmating during flame wars.

The sources are copied from blogs and forums; I can dig further if you guys feel it's helpful (if not, I won't waste everyone's time). If they are jacked from blogs and forums, then that means the editor who originally added them didn't read them. If that's the case, then the source should be the websites from which they were taken. But those websites are blogs and forums, and they fail WP:RS. That was my thinking in raising an issue with it.

If you guys are down, we can go through what's available via English translation first as the default. I don't know if Toddy and Faizhaider speak Arabic though I'm sure Faizhaider speaks Urdu, and I can go through the Arabic books as well. But do you guys think we should exhaust the English-language sources first? It's easier for readers to verify. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that some of the citations on this article and the one on Yazid I are really second-hand (though claimed to be first-hand). If the editor who put them there does not really know what is in the sources, he/she cannot know whether he/she faithfully represents what they say. For example, on the page on Yazid I, Flagrantedelicto added a bit saying that Tabari Volume 19 said that Yazid was a tyrant - but when I checked Tabari Volume 19 it said that rebels being besieged by government forces referred to Yazid as a tyrant. We need to know what the sources really are, and if some of them have been copied from forums instead of being read then we need to know this and move them to the talk page or mark them as needing checking. But please be careful about dates of postings - forums copy from Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

When you look at Muawiyah in detail, you also come across literature from early Byzantine and Jewish chroniclers. I was wondering if any of you have gone through that and could shed more light on that. You also come across Sabaites named after Abdala Ben Saba. He is mentioned in many books. History of the Jews: From the Roman Empire to the Early Medieval ..., Volume 2 By Simon Dubnov page 330 where it talks about Abdala Ben Saba [1]

There are also other old books like this one. Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Century: With an ... By Moritz Steinschneider, William Spottiswoode page 59 which don't appear to be well researched but still talk about Sabaites[2]

There is also other non Muslim literature from near that time like The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus By Bar Hebraeus [3]

In some early Muslim books there are also references to the qurra who later became the Kharijities. (Some books I have come across say that al-Baladhuri talks about them, but I don't have a copy of al-Baladhuri, but I will be getting it, They also say At-Tabari 5:66 also talks about them). Modern Intellectual Readings of the Kharijites By Hussam S. Timani Page 62

[4]

Do you think something about the Qurra also needs to be included in this article. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@UserLJohnleeds1: I concur.

@User:Toddy1: We have two options. We can go through each given source now, trying to look up each citation. Or, we can run web searches and anything we find being passed around on polemical blogs and forums prior to 2011 can just be removed; we then rebuild the sections from scrath.

Either way can work, but I have two concerns with the first way:

1. It assumes good faith when, at this point, I don't think we need to since we already know for certain some of the citations were copy-pasted. I mean come on...the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal? It has more than 26,000 ahadith, I couldn't readily accept that someone with that level of knowledge and research sifted through the pages since the book is not organized by topic. That's even if there wasn't funny business going on here, and we're certain that there is, we just need to take the time to pinpoint the exact times and origins of the copy pasting.

2. It will take much more time than the first alternative. I own some of the books like Mas'udi's Murruj al Dhahab and Tabari's history, others we can find online, but cross checking everything - and we will have to since you already uncovered at least one instance of academic dishonesty - will take forever.

I won't push too hard if nobody else wants to start again from scratch but I would like everyone to consider it. If anybody worries about representation, we have plenty of modern scholars from all sides we can take from: William Montgomery Watt, Wilferd Madelung, Muhammad Mustafa Al-A'zami, Hossein Nasr...there are also English translations widely available of Tabari's history, Ibn Kathir's tafsir, Mas'udi's book (I guess my mention above was superfluous, looking back) and others. I honestly think this will be faster than cross-checking everything. What does everyone else think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to know:

• Which citations you have evidence of being second-hand. I am not asking you to check every citation, but please do some. [i.e. Yes, please could you "run web searches and anything we find being passed around on polemical blogs and forums prior to 2011 can just be removed" - but please move it to the talk page, with the evidence. It is important to be fair. And it is possible that some time later we might want to use these as leads to information.
• What the books being cited are, which would be best added to the reference section. Remember, most Wikipedia editors have never heard of any of these books. It is only when we are clear what books really are, that editors can buy or borrow them.

I do not want to start from scratch. But I have no objection to replacement of paragraphs/sections with suspect citations with new paragraphs/sections that have good citations. Similarly, if a paragraph is original research, or synthesis, of fails "checking by sampling", then removal to the talk page is justified. (Checking by sampling is the idea that if the citation(s) I can check, clearly do not support what is claimed of it, then it is unlikely that the other citations to sources I cannot check probably do not either.)

I think we should add the title to citations that are in parenthesis form ["Smith (2011) p45"]. The format that gives the book title as well is much clearer.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It will be best if there was more focus on actual historical events agreed to by the different sources like for example the actual battles and campaigns and other actual events in the top half of the article. When we start talking about what people think of him, it gets very long and there are arguments as no one can agree :) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Toddy1: You mentioned that you bought and checked 'Tabari Volume 19' regarding the claim 'Yazid being a tyrant' as view of Tabari. Can you please share specifics of where did you looked and found the claim to be void e.g. page# / part# / para# / etc, also details of the copy you are refering to e.g. who is publisher, where did it got published, when did it got published, who is translator, etc; if you can provide this information it'll be helpful for ohter editors who are in position or are willing to cross check the refernce as they will be saved from re-inventing the wheel.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I plan to propose a change to the Yazid I article. I will propose a change, on that article's talk page, and will explain exactly what Tabari really says. This will be in a few weeks. I am visiting London for the tennis, so it is not convenient to do it now. But the tennis will be over in 2 weeks, and it will take a little time to check page numbers, etc. If I notice any evidence that I might be mistaken, I will of course also mention this.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I had wanted to get to some other projects as well. I have a proposal. Why don't we take a brief recess from proposed changes to this article (I'm uninvolved at Yazid I and will likely stay that way) until after Toddy's tennis match (good luck if you're competing, have fun if you're watching) and some mental rest for all of us from the previous...negativity. Then we can come back, start a new section and brother Faizhaider can sort of referee a new round of discussion along with Johnleeds, myself and anyone else who is interested on what should and shouldn't be changed in the article. Does that work out for everyone? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be good way of doing the things. I'll suggest one more thing that as discussions are underway and consensus is reached the article's current state should be left untouched (we may get it fully protected). The editor's willing to work on improvement may work on temporary copy located at Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp, it is a common practice across WP.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

See you all in a few weeks. Enjoy your reading :) and think about how the article needs to be structured. Considering that Muawiyah is such a complex character, living in a complex time, try thinking out side the box. Imagine if you lived at that time, what decisions would you have made. One of the major issues highlighted by Flagrantedelicto is that because Muawiyah lived at a time before the Sunni Shia theological schools of thought were formed, the views of many of the scholars of the time like Abdullah ibn Umar do not fit well with the current views of the Sunnis or Shias. In many cases it has been like fitting a square peg into a round hole. Their views are more in middle ground and they don't feel that only the descendent's of Ali should rule, but then at the same time they oppose any ruler they think is unjust. They all appeared to oppose Yazid, but tolerated Muawiyah after the treaty with Hassan.

But then Hassan also had to make some very hard decisions. Imagine if you were in his position. He had lost many of his close friends, including Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, who he was raised with, he was also the guard, guarding Uthman the day he was killed. Imagine what went through his mind. What if history took a different course. Then he had the Kharijites in Iraq to deal with. It was all very complicated. There are different groups with different economic and political interests and then on top of that the populations in the different areas were very tribal and nationalistic.

May be even keep the Sunni views and the Shia views out at the beginning and concentrate on the facts agreed to by everyone first. Just think about it. If this article could be cleaned up, then the rest of the articles in the Islam section will fall into place. Sunni view and the Shia view arguments have been letting down the whole Islam section. May be the article needs to stick with the historical facts, rather than peoples views as then everyone starts arguing :) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)