Talk:Battle of Badr

(2024.03.11)

Untitled
Yo !!

I don't have the time right now to acquire the necessary knowledge about these 'old norse' formatting methods, rules or standards, so I am going to make this short and sweet:

There is a huge blunder in this article:

"In January 634, the same caravan made its way home" should be altered to "In January 624, the same caravan made its way home"

Just sayin'

My apologies for this appearing out of style.

Bye for now!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.236.56 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Revisionist Style of Narrative
The entire article presents the subject in the modern revisionist style and does not include an significant historical sources from the Muslim body of scholarship, except a few mentions from Ibn Hisham, Bukhari here and there. I am suggesting an inclusion of mainstream Muslim scholarship as well to balance out the extensive revisionist point of views prevalent. Moughera (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No, mainstream muslim sources should not be included.
 * This is an encyclopedia entry on a historical event, not an article regarding Islamic theology. 5.176.75.23 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @5.176.75.23 Ah yes, the historical standard comprises only of non muslim community, the historical facts conserved by muslims should not be entertained, dispite the fact the mentioned historical fact was about muslims. The fruitless efforts to provide misinformation to the general Internet users about islam is still not a new thing. 2401:BA80:A107:7815:17DC:157:D79:43B9 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is but you have to balance it out by taking information from both sides(idk if there is other side from where you come to know about Badr, anyhow), it is clearing giving out a sense of hatred against a particular group of individuals. 111.68.97.206 (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even Abu Jahl would have been surprised today seeing how hard someone tried to defend them. 111.68.99.90 (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing touch up
The section short in in-line citation is a little bit of a jarring mismatch with the recent GA status - not sure if it was just taken as covered by the citation at the section end, but now that it's been challenged, this needs backfilling really. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023
hi I dont want to edit this I wanted someone else too beacuse I feel that the term (attacking beliefs) is too harsh for an important figure in a big religion, of you could change it to be more neutral I would be grateful Tuckee (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't have access to the cited source to verify it myself, but your rationale is insufficient for a change and is essentially WP:JDL. Cannolis (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024
Please edit arabic date of Battle of Badr from Ramadan 2nd to Ramadan 17th. 82.13.211.34 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * The reliable source detailing the correct date is as follows;
 * https://www.islamchannel.tv/blog-posts/on-this-day-the-battle-of-badr
 * Thanks Rasojp (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source. Can you provide an academic paper in the field of history and not a religiously affiliated one? 5.176.75.23 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024 (2)
RahilChoudhary004 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I need to fix something in this article, the lines which I want to change are totally incorrect and showing hate towards Islam and it's followers, thus I request you to please let me fix something in the article and also have a checkpoint on the following paragraph in this article, your reply is mostly needed, thankyou. Yours Sincerely Rahil_Choudhary_04
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you please guide me, about how I could change the lines or tell someone to do that, it would be very helpful, Jamedus
 * Waiting for your reply. RahilChoudhary004 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The instructions are right there in the reply - just click the link on "autoconfirmed." PianoDan (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Kindly let me edit by myself or someone do this, Remove these false allegations which were putted upon The prophet, peace be upon him.
I sincerely request the editors to please remove these false allegations ASAP.

I sincerely request the editors to please remove these false allegations ASAP.

"The latter had originally set out to protect their homeward-bound trade caravan that Muhammad was about to raid. Prior to this, Muhammad had ordered his followers to carry out several raids on Quraysh caravans, which, despite initial failures, finally succeeded in gaining their first plunder at Nakhla, when the Quraysh were observing a holy month forbidding them from shedding blood."

"The latter had originally set out to protect their homeward-bound trade caravan that Muhammad was about to raid.[9][2] Prior to this, Muhammad had ordered his followers to carry out several raids on Quraysh caravans, which, despite initial failures, finally succeeded in gaining their first plunder at Nakhla, when the Quraysh were observing a holy month forbidding them from shedding blood.[10][11] RahilChoudhary004 (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please edit this info as early as possible. This is misleading and totally false Pacificpeace (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pacificpeace delete the page entirely 2401:BA80:A107:7815:17DC:157:D79:43B9 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove image
Hi,

Can someone kindly remove the image which is so called depicted the Holy Prophet ﷺ as this is a cause of great disrespect.

Thanks. Rasojp (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, sorry; this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text, and the historical image is relevant to the content. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED.  General Ization  Talk  02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if this is not considered a religious text, in Islam any image depicting the Prophet ﷺ is a cause if disrespect, therefore I would like to kindly implore you to replace this image with a map of the location of 'Badr' where this historical battle took place.
 * Many thanks. Rasojp (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NOTCENSORED, specifically:
 * "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
 * "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content."
 * Jamedeus (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jamedeus praise to the holy rules of wikipedia, the picture you have provided is the 'most appropriate' picture, despite the fact 2 billon people regard that picture as far from accurate and offensive. shame on you 2401:BA80:A107:7815:17DC:157:D79:43B9 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jamedeus praise to the holy rules of wikipedia, the picture you have provided is the 'most appropriate' picture, despite the fact 2 billon people regard that picture as far from accurate and offensive. shame on you 2401:BA80:A107:7815:17DC:157:D79:43B9 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove the page entirely
It hurts the religious sentiments of Muslim community and was made with intent to spread false information and many of claims made in it are false and it doesn’t allow to edit the page it is locked and other material on internet can be reported offensive but why is it not being removed when it is obvious that the writer has negative intent. Plz anyone who is tech savvy enough do something about it remove it. In this day and age people trying to be politically correct why is that Our PROPHET Who sacred for billions of people in world why is that an article that is False and disrespectful still available on this forum. Plz somebody remove it and put and Authenticate narrative in its place Plz. 2601:140:9201:7FC0:3CC1:457:4F90:2DF9 (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that this page has some severe POV issues.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This entire article was re-written with a POV
I notice that since this article gained GA status, it has been rewritten with a POV. Consider this line, which is written in wikivoice by :

Such a claim would need to be attributed as per WP:IMPARTIAL or WP:SUBJECTIVE. VR (Please ping on reply) 10:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * also added "Muhammad employed poets like Hassan ibn Thabit to circulate his propaganda among the tribes." Again a POV statement that needs to be attributed.VR (Please ping on reply) 10:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:IMPARTIAL states, "Wikipedia describes disputes." Is there a source that contradicts the article's statements you mentioned above? I think this is similar to how Robert B. Spencer is described as anti-Muslim in the lead of his Wikipedia article without attributing it to anyone, because there seem to be no reliable sources disputing it. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  12:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * simple solution for this and everything below is to roll it back to the 18 May 2023 version and start over. After combing through the page history, I couldn't find meaningful content additions by any other users during that time span. What do you think? Left guide (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that, but lets wait for consensus to develop.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I support rolling back the page to a version from before Kaalakaa's POV overhaul. Looking at the subsections below, it's necessary because of how gratuitously Kaalakaa pushed a Islamophobic POV. Making Islam look good isn't Wikipedia's purpose, but nor is making Islam look bad. Our purpose is to educate and make information available, and we do so by summarizing the balance of reliable sources, not by picking a small slice of one's favorite sources that favor a specific POV and go against the grain of the wider array of relevant reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 15:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support rolling back. If article already had GA status, then future edits should have been more careful and we should be pro-active about rolling back potentially problematic ones, and unexplained deletions and POV changes certainly fall under that. The article has also been subject to much sockpuppet activity since then (unrelated to Kaalakaa), most of which has certainly been reverted but maybe not all. R Prazeres (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I really can't comprehend how an article could gain Good Article status when many of its citations to various books did not include page numbers—or sections, chapters, or other divisions—at all (violating WP:FULLCITE), and some of the statements even lacked citations (violating WP:OR). Furthermore, many of the statements were cited to Mubarakfuri and Martin Lings, who wrote their books explicitly from Islamic perspective. Even a dubious website Witness-pioneer.org was used. And this version is considered better than the version where each statement is fully cited with page numbers to secular sources from reputable publishers like university presses, Brill, De Gruyter, etc.? But, well...  —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  20:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm against (is that how you say it) rolling back to remove mentions of propaganda. That the battle was used in propaganda is so uncontroversial I'm at a loss as to how editors who have even glanced at the sources think it's untrue. The wording is poor, as seems to be the case for many sections, but the information itself is widely attested. XeCyranium (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If that was the only thing at issue, I would agree, but what is being considered here are mass edits across a previously GA article by an editor with an obvious POV mission. It would be easier for other editors to (re-)add any non-problematic material after rollback than it would be to retroactively untangle all the unexplained deletions and changes to already-sourced material. R Prazeres (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with R Prazeres on this, and I say this as someone inclined to XeCyranium's point about the propagandistic use of a military victory being not all that implausible (I think it's not the best example of the POV editing; the subsections below are more clear-cut)—although propaganda does tend to ring with a negative tone to readers. Perhaps a phrasing like publicized this victory as a validation of his prophetic claims? But I digress. In any case, it's as R Prazeres said. The extensive introduction of POV material over the past year is serious enough that any improving would be easier to do with the article as it existed prior to the editor rewriting it. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 00:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Honestly, some of the wording gives me the impression of reading Conservapedia. While I appreciate fixing the content for WP:OR purposes, but going aboard and/or cherrypicking the sources, inserting WP:GRATUITOUS material, to bolster an editor's own conspicuous tendentious content, just compromises essential neutrality and turns the article into a WP:SOAPBOX.
 * Futhermore, I concur with @Left guide, that there was minimal constructive inputs from others editors during this timeframe. StarkReport (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I opposse as per XeCyranium argument. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is, well, extremely incorrect. How exactly does the statement that a historical leader employed propaganda, as attested to by historians, violate impartiality? Unless you're suggesting academic sources argue there was no propaganda relating to the battle, in which case you should provide evidence. XeCyranium (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two problems here. First when the author in question is referring to propaganda, they are referring to Muhammad's "prophetic claims", ie the religion of Islam. Saying the Islamic faith is propaganda is fine only when attributed but should not be said in wikivoice.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: As it stands, five editors are in favor of the reversion and only two opposing. I suggest we boldly move forward with the change. The article is currently riddled with POV issues. StarkReport (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for the reminder. Left guide (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Treatment of prisoners
The article used to have a section on treatment of prisoners that stated, with attribution that the prisoners were treated humanely. The original citation was to William Muir, a 19th century source, but newer sources also affirm this:

Other sources:

Also removed was "those who were literate were released on the condition that they teach ten persons how to read and write and this teaching was to count as their ransom". Sourcing for that wasn't great, but better sources can easily be found. VR (Please ping on reply) 11:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Gratuitous violence given UNDUE weight
Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. But has gone overboard with giving gratuitous violence giving it WP:UNDUE weight, seemingly for POV purposes. For example, the lead of the article (yes, the lead), currently states

Why does this belong in the lead? This seems like WP:UNDUE weight. In the rest of the article, discussions of religious, legal and even strategic military significance have been removed and replaced with pointless details of gratuitous violence and other unencylopedic language. Just some examples: VR (Please ping on reply) 12:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ikrima managed to slash Mu'adh's shoulder
 * leg was severed by Mu'adh ibn Amr's sword
 * Ibn Mas'ud then placed his foot on his neck and inquired, "Are you Abu Jahl?" Upon confirmation, he grasped the dying man's beard and decapitated his head.
 * Holding it [the decapitated head] up, he then cast it at Muhammad's feet, who jubilantly exclaimed...
 * When Uqba pleaded, "But who will take care of my children, Muhammad?" Muhammad replied, "Hell."
 * "thrown the pieces of its liver at you"
 * licking their lips like snakes
 * his lungs were swollen with fear
 * God laugh with glee
 * we cut their throats like the camels
 * executed her while she slept with her children, the youngest still nursing in her arms.


 * This all reads like a bad adventure novel, and should be rewritten like you propose. XeCyranium (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixing issues
and, thanks for the revert. The older version has some small issues that I'll go ahead and fix:
 * Some invalid or broken references
 * excessive references to Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri
 * reduce "novel"-like descriptions of the battle
 * increase analysis and significance of the battle

If anyone finds any of edits objectionable, please let me know.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please go right ahead, with any massive revert like that there's bound to be some collateral damage; thanks for your eye to detail and for helping out. Left guide (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)