Talk:Battle of Khaybar/Archive 3

Issues with article
Here is what I believe are burning issues here:
 * Is Nomani a reliable?
 * Is Mubarakpuri a reliable source?
 * Watt and Stillman need to be "evaluated".

Am I right? If yes, let's proceed to resolve these issues.Bless sins 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In the beginning there's an error..it states that the Bani Nadir were beheaded..that is not true..it was the Banu Quraydah

This may seem pedantic compared to other issues debated here, but there are several typos in the article including bieng instead of being and thrity instead of thirty. I don't seem to be allowed to edit these at the moment so can someone just clean those up? I'm invoking editprotected (my first time so apologies if I've mucked the phrase) Jonathan Cardy 15:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to unprotect the article, so you will be able to edit it yourself. Everyone should be aware that edit warring can lead to editors being blocked as well as to the article being protected. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, thankyou Carl. Jonathan Cardy 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pogroms
The tone of the article is unbelievable! It suggests the battle is a "pogrom" solely because the battle took place against Jews. I quote: " ... Muhammad's attacks against the Jews, first in Medina and then in Khaybar, had economic roots similar to those which have brought about persecutions and pogroms in other countries in the course of history"

This is a very biased approach since equal attention to Islamic religious aspects of the battle are not addressed. If this article was a part of a description of Jewish sentiments in the context of Jewish history such a biased approach could be accepted but, in this context it should be a neutral historical approach to factual events. It should not be an argument in favour of Jewish sentiments nor an article portraying Islamic dogma. The article itself substantiates reasons for Muslim hostility in prior actions by the Jews thus, the event does not merit itself as a pogrom in this context, if at all.

To fix the anti-Islamic tone claims even if correct must be presented in their correct context! Most importantly statements that suggest relative comparisons to other pogroms must be removed. This is not an article on pogroms. Pogrom is a biased word for atrocity, if killing your enemy counts as that.


 * This article if it something then it is pro-Islamic bias.We need to give more different opinions and NOT only William Montgomery Watt.I am sure there are other historians that think differently then him.87.69.77.82 18:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm a guy attacks jews,ensklaves the woman and children,kills the men and steals their possesions.I dont know if i would call it pogrom..more like ethnic cleansing,with clear economic thought in it. He hides his horrific deeds behind "orders from god"(heard something similar before? nürnberg?) And somebody is arguing about the tone of this wiki article...Truth can be insulting for some —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.215.40 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Only one author has made the assertion that the men were killed and women/children enslaved, everyone else states that they were allowed to live there as long as the Muslims allowed and as long as they payed tribute. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

the torturing Kinana
It should be mention in this article in the aftermatch.87.69.77.82 21:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is, its just not quoted. Jedi Master MIK 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nomination as a good article
Do you agree to nominate this article as a good article.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No.It is not good article.It show all the event from Muslims point of view and not from neutral point of view.Oren.tal 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats a bit presumptuous considered virtually all the references given are from non-Muslims. Jedi Master MIK 16:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First it should be evaluated for B-class.Bless sins 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jedi Master MIK,Watt is non-Muslim but consider as apologist of Islam.in wikipedia criticism of islam it say "Responses to critics have come from non-Muslim scholars like William Montgomery Watt".Therefore in oreder to give more neutral poit of view we sould  have also other historians  that criticise Islam or al least no apologist.Oren.tal 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, Watt is far from being the only non-Muslim author cited on this page; there is also Lings, Stillman, and Lewis. Second, I don't know whose authority or decision your citing to label someone like that but the fact that he is a non-Muslim and defending Islam at the same time doesn't mean he's apologist, in fact using him to cite defense of Islam would be more neutral than a Muslim defending.  Third, I suggest you don't label people apologist b/c IMHO it carries both negative and POV overtones to it. Jedi Master MIK 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * neutral point of view on this article is to accurately depict history in accordance with what the scholarly sources relate (Watt is perfectly reliable in this regard). it isn't an issue of piling up pro-Islamic vs. anti-Islamic views.  ITAQALLAH   21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses
The numbers presented here seem to be ridiculous given the nature of the battle. Surely the muslim losses should be much greater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampishthing (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle or Massacre?
What kind of battle is it when one group suddenly attacks the other, and the other is unarmed? And then slaughters everyone? Sounds to me like a perfect description of a massacre. If I get no response to this in the future, I will change the main page description to Massacre of Khaybar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.32.165 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Historians have been calling this event a battle, even if it technically seems like a massacre. According to Wikipedia guidelines, we should use the term "battle" since it is documented and sourced. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So far as I know Arabic (at least back then) had no specific word for "battle". The usual parlance would be "day of Khaybar". Most of the time this would be a battle - like "the day of Badr" - other significant events would also be designated days. The best translation would be "the conquest of Khaybar". I would change the name except that I think the entire article needs to be re-written from end to end. It is hard to recognize Ibn Ishaq's account in this story and, since Ibn Ishaq is the oldest source, it should be the most creditable. An alternative would be to follow al-Tabari (who does use Ibn Ishaq) who was late enough to be aware of all the authentic records. DKleinecke (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just from the casualties count it's quite obvious that it wasn't a battle. I think, btw, that it should be changed. As it is now, it seems as if the Jews had 10,000 soldiers against the Muslim's 1600 while in fact only a few of these 10k had weapons. I know history is written by the victor, but this is ridicules. TFighterPilot (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Did You Know? Template
This article was listed on Did You Know as the result of an error; the template at the top of the page misleads the reader into thinking that it was legitimately listed there. Why is the (presumably honest) mistake being compounded by the restoration of this template?  JEREMY 08:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically it was listed as a DYK on both the 8th and 9th:

22:54 May 8th till 04:40 May 9th


 * Start
 * End

I agree with Jeremygbyrne though that the template shouldn't be there... I've removed it. Netscott 08:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Netscott, why shouldn't the template be there?Timothy Usher 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Due to the logic that Jeremy has expressed. Netscott 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose the folks who work on DYK might be the ultimate decision makers over this. Jeremy, I'd recommend you contact those folks. As this'll likely deteriorate into an edit war otherwise. Netscott 08:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. The template reads only a statement of fact, and is accurate in that.  It doesn't say it righteously and gloriously appeared on DYK, or anything like that.Timothy Usher 08:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"? Pull the other one.  JEREMY 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I continue not to understand what the problem can be with this perfectly standard template which neutrally reports a fact. Why not follow up on Netscott's suggestion?Timothy Usher 07:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I simply can't make myself believe that you don't understand, Timothy. You might disagree, but you understand perfectly well my contention that the template misleads others into thinking the article was a legitimate DYK entry, instead of being removed from that category because it had been promoted against the rules. (Wow, deju va!) &#0151; JEREMY 08:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the listings' last mention on the DYK suggestion page showing no dispute. Please provide a link proving your point. --tickle me 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a completely nonsensical assertion that the article was listed on DYK as a result of an error; furthermore, there is no policy, guideline or whatever saying that the Did you know template should be removed from an article's talk page under certain circumstances. If Netscott or JEREMY thought the article should not appear on the Main Page, they should have stated their arguments on the Did you know talk page. It's silly to raise issues several months after the fact. Pecher Talk 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "nonsensical" about it. It was listed in error and was subsequently removed for that error (see also section second from bottom on this diff). The situation was rectified immediately, but certain editors edit-warred the template back onto the page despite knowing full well that the error had been made. &#0151; JEREMY 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Did you know says: "Eligible articles may only be up to 5 days old, or significantly expanded beyond 1000 characters in the last 5 days." This article was expanded from a stub before being shown on the Main Page, so it was not shown in error, even if one admin thinks it was. That the article was on the Main Page is a fact, don't try to suppress it. Pecher Talk 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It might say that now, but it most certainly didn't then. If you'd even bothered to glance at the page you'd have noticed the big, bold notice saying THESE ITEMS MUST BE NO MORE THAN 120 HOURS (5 days) OLD! I'm not "suppressing" anything, and I'd thank you not to make such ad hominem attacks. &#0151; JEREMY 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It had been an unwritten rule for quite long before it was finally codified. If you look through the archives, you'll find lots of articles unstubbed and then featured in the Did you know. Pecher Talk 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be the secret-handshake unwritten rule known only to the 133ts like yourself, as opposed to the rest of us chumps who took the CAPITALISED, BOLDED WARNING at face value? Bzzzt. Sorry: no credibility for you. &#0151; JEREMY 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have context on what the problem was, and wasn't the admin that added the selection or the template but I'm not sure I see the harm in leaving the template on the talk page. You could add a note if you wanted that it was added by mistake. But it's not a big deal, DYK is supposed to be fun and a way to introduce readers to new articles (that they might be able to improve). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having apparently exhausted logical discourse after every one of his objections has been addressed with undeniably factual evidence, User:Pecher &mdash; returning unrepentant from a 24-hour ban for edit-warring &mdash; is now chosing to merely revert my alteration to the template describing the mechanism by which this article was gamed into DYK and thus onto the main page. Perhaps he or his supporters might suggest a compromise they'd be happy with, so we can all move on?  JEREMY 07:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unstubbed articles are just as valid for DYK as newly-created articles. Regardless, it makes no sense to remove a template specifying that this article was once on the main page, when it in fact was once on the main page. Articles that used to be Featured but were delisted still have a notice saying that they were on the main page when they were featured, simply because removing that notice makes no sense. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-08-10 07:26


 * I suppose, the issue is settled now. Pecher Talk 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was misinformed by Pecher that the article was unstubbed. It was definitely an invalid nomination. I'm neutral about whether the notice should be removed or not. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-10 16:50


 * Here is the unstubbing diff. The previous version was a stub. How come I misinformed you? Pecher Talk 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Going back a bit more into history shows that the article has experienced lots of changes. --Aminz 20:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article was stubbed because a prior version was a blatant POV copyvio; see discussion above. Pecher Talk 20:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was misinformed by Jeremy that it was not a stub, when it clearly was. Either way, just keep me out of this debate, since I have no clue what any of your motives are. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-10 21:17

Guys, the article was selected, rightly or wrongly. That's all that matters. I'm with Brian on this one, why does this matter in the grand scheme of things? ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this article as anti-Muslim. It is based on western histories which are in fact derived and twisted from Muslim ones. Prophet Muhammad did not actually participate in Khaybar, he sent his cousin Ali as the leader of the army which is a known fact to all Muslims. Why is this stated as a fact->"Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir, whom Muhammad's followers first tortured, demanding to reveal the location of the hidden treasures of his tribe, and then beheaded" This is not true, torture to prisoners is forbidden to the Muslims, I am a Muslim and I know that Muslims especially at the time of the prophet were the most merciful conqueres in history, otherwise not so many people would be muslims today. Sure, booty was one of the goals, but the main reason of the conquest of Khaybar was that the Jews in Khaybar proved to be mortal enemies to the Muslims by helping the Alliance at the battle of the trench, spying, and ultimately attempted to take the life of the prophet. The prophet couldn't deal with them before because he was threatend by Quraish. Banu Quraizah were judged by a dying companion of the prophet named Sa'ad Ibn Ubadah. He was shot by an arrow during the battle of the trench, he was asked by the prophet to judge a suitable punishment for their betrayal of the alliance between them and the Muslims. Hence, he judged their men to be killed and their sons and women to be enslaved. This severe punishment is suitable for allying themselves with the Muslims and when combat starts they try to stab the Muslims from the back. This has nothing to do with them being Jews, it has to do everything with their betrayal

Hamidious 13:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So Ibn Hisham was lying was he? Or is "The Life of the Prophet" suddenly "Not notable" 62.196.17.197 (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Undo revert of "Present use" section
May we reinstate the material from the above?

User:AsceticRose's subsequent has the edit summary "Undid revision 629782259 by User:Musashiaharon; the Articles for deletion/Khaybar Khaybar concluded this to be merged to Khaybar".

I decided to merge to Battle of Khaybar instead of Khaybar for a couple reasons:

In a nutshell, since the original merge to Khaybar failed so long ago, and for an understandable and easily-remedied reason, I decided to WP:Be bold and do something that I hoped would be agreeable to all. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Some of this material did previously exist on Khaybar as of July 2013, but the same User:AsceticRose removed it on . (The edit summary was "removed uncited controversial material; added  tag", describing two different modifications in the same edit). It appeared to me that since he did not simply add a  tag but rather deleted the material, he felt that it was not suitable for the Khaybar article. This I could agree with, especially given:
 * 2) User:Xevorim's suggestion on Talk:Khaybar that the material . This makes sense to me, since all the material in question is related to the event of the battle, rather than to the oasis itself in general. This also follows the pattern of other articles about places where battles occurred. Generally, things pertaining to the event are on the "Battle of X" page, while the article "X" itself is merely links to the battle article.

Edit presenting "reason" for the battle
This edit by Alfikri90 indicates that a historical novelist has made claim that:
 * "there had been a plan by Jews living in Khaybar to unite with other Jews from Banu Wadi Qurra, Taima', Fadak as well as Ghafataan Arab tribe to attack Madinah. Nevertheless, in preventing the Jews' plan, Muslims had attacked the city of Khaybar before the Jews were able to unite with other Jews and Ghafataan Arab trite to attack Madinah."

I have been unable to find reliable reference to support this claim and suspect that it may be an artistic and potentially damaging/malicious fabrication. The citation also lacks page reference or quotation. GregKaye 09:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Khaybar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://fulla.augustana.edu:2057/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=123&sid=ccf18ebb-ddd6-48de-b246-4bc9f98a2c7b%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=21975886
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60y569zNt?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.witness-pioneer.org%2Fvil%2FBooks%2FSM_tsn%2Fch6s2.html to http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch6s2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

POV content
Islam was destined to win in this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.240.8 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What Margoliouth is alleged to say is clearly a very one-sided story detached from the accepted historical version. Yes, different viewpoints are presented, but here the problem is Margoliouth's arguments appear to promote an specific story not based on fact, but his own propaganda. Hence, it contradicts with WP:NPOV, and seems something like WP:SOAPBOX. And about referencing, today Margoliouth is hardly referenced because of the mentioned reasons. Some pov sources use Margoliouth as reference. Otherwise, he is rather criticized by Muslim writers for his imaginative and pov claims. - Ascetic Rosé   17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If what you're concerned about is whether the proposed text accurately represents Margoliouth's view ("[w]hat Margoliouth is alleged to say"), I'm glad to provide the entire section verbatim here on the talk page (the work is now in the public domain). I sense from your comments that this may not be your primary concern, though.  Yes, Margoliouth places a different interpretation on events than do the other sources cited in the article, but it doesn't violate the principle of NPOV to include multiple points of view.  It's not my intent to get on a "soapbox", and I'm sensitive to your concern about that.  That's why in my last edit I did not put any mention of Margoliouth's view in the article lede.  But given the length of the discussion in the section on "Banu Nadir" it hardly seems unbalanced to note Margoliouth's interpretation.  Certainly he may be criticized by Muslim writers (and if you have good examples of those criticisms, it would be appropriate to include them).  That does not make him an unreliable source for his own interpretation of an historical event (any more than criticism by Christian writers would make a Muslim author an unreliable source for his or her interpretation of an event in Christian history). EastTN (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You raised an interesting point about the extent to which Margoliouth is referenced. As a comparison, I went to Google Scholar and searched for (Margoliouth "Mohammed and the Rise of Islam") and (Vaglieri "encyclopedia of islam").  Vaglieri's "An Interpretation of Islam" was originally published in Italian in 1925, so she's more than a bit dated as well.  I arbitrary set the search for references since 1980, so we'd be looking at relatively contemporary references.  This gave me 45 hits for Vaglieri and 62 for Margoliouth.  Setting the search for references since 1990 I get 41 for Vaglieri and 59 for Margoliouth.  Searching for refrences since 2000 I get 36 hits for Vaglieri and 50 for Margoliouth.  Doing a Google Scholar search for (Margoliouth Islam) and for (Vaglieri Islam) for references since 2000 I get 347 hits on Vaglieri and 1,400 hits on Margoliouth.  If we're simply looking at how often each scholar is mentioned in the contemporary literature, it's not at all obvious that Margoliouth is a less credible source than the ones already cited in the article. EastTN (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've pulled the relevant sections on the battle of Khaybar from Margoliuth:


 * This should provide enough context to allow others to judge whether the proposed text misrepresents Margoliouth's views. EastTN (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As an aside, William Muir held a similar view:


 * EastTN (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One other thought. It may make sense to set this up a bit differently, perhaps even in a criticism section under - or immediately after - the "Aftermath" section.   Or, it could be a parallel section to the one entitled "The battle in classic Islamic literature" perhaps with the title "The battle in Western thought."  Then it could be framed with something along the lines of "Late 19th and early 20th century Christian and Jewish authors criticized the battle . . ." (the Jewish Encylcopedia also describes the attack as being unprovoked). That covers the literature in a way that should avoid any POV concerns.  EastTN (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your effort is appreciated; however such copious text was not actually necessary. Google search can show such statistics, but the point is that the more we go to the past writers, the more unbalanced the views are about Islam. That's why, the article Muhammad says Non-Muslim views regarding Muhammad have ranged across a large spectrum of responses and beliefs, many of which have changed over time and earliest European literature often refers to Muhammad unfavorably. You will see Wikipedia articles generally tend to use comparatively recent authors' works as reference. And I said it is about point of view, not WP:RS. Yes, Muir held somewhat similar views; which is why he is also criticized, and not so popular today as a reference.


 * About the content that was added, Margoliouth's comment like Islam became a menace to the whole world lends nothing to historical value/account, and constitutes only the early western propaganda against Islam. Again, Margoliouth's argument to ascribe the attack to a desire for plunder proves false when other western historians have detected the proper causes of the attack (present in the article). Margoliouth saw a deeper significance in the Battle of Khaybar is a very personal comment. These are very one-sided arguments, and I don't see how it improves the article. Any encyclopedia article should encapsulate the standard version of any subject. - Ascetic Rosé   16:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Grabbing the text was no trouble, and it seemed the simplest way to lay aside any concern that I'd misrepresented the source. There is some danger in thinking that an article should only "encapsulate the standard version of any subject", because it's easy to begin limiting ourselves to our favorite version.  While we might prefer her interpretation, Laura Veccia Vaglieri is almost as dated as either Margoliouth or Muir, and we're referencing Watt publications from the 1950's and 60's.  And let's not forget, the authors that are currently cited in the article also have points of view - for instance, Watt believed the Quran to be inspired.  Anyone who doesn't accept the inspiration of the Quran will see that as a fundamental source of bias.


 * I do believe there's a way that we can address both your concerns and mine. That is to add a section on "The battle in Western thought" that's parallel to the section on "The battle in classic Islamic literature" and describe this literature that identifies both the time period and that it's a criticism (e.g., "Late 19th and early 20th century Christian and Jewish authors criticized the battle . . .").  If you have sources that speak to any bias, it would be appropriate to include them as well.  Helping readers understand what's been said - and to put it into its proper context - does strengthen the article.  Working together we can cover the full range of literature and views on the battle in a way that's balanced.  EastTN (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said that there was a misrepresentation; I was talking about how far it is relevant to include Margoliouth. If you really think that his view should be presented, I'm self reverting myself in the Banu Nadir section, not in the lead.


 * I'm not sure what will be discussed if a section "The battle in Western thought" is created. About half of the sources are western, and as such the article already presents the western thought. Moreover, you will see the section "The battle in classic Islamic literature" does not deal with its namesake, and only presents some sporadic events of the battle. I think the article is okay without it. - Ascetic Rosé   15:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Khaybar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516183642/http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/results.php5 to http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/results.php5
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch6s2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Khaybar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161025084645/http://islamstory.com/%D8%BA%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%A9-%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%B1-1-2 to http://www.islamstory.com/%D8%BA%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%A9-%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%B1-1-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Charter of Medina, Jews, eviction, etc.
This edit undid a revert I did yesterday, saying "unsourced and POV." The edit summary on my revert said "Not WP:NPOV." This comment is not about dueling POVs, though.

This article is not one which I would routinely be editing. I don't recall the edit circumstances of my revert, but I'm guessing that I made the edit during a quick drop-out from a WP:Huggle session to make the revert. Looking at the two versions again, I think made yesterday's revert because I took the assertion saying "[the Islamic community] abused Jewish hospitality" and the description "their own city" ("their" meaning "native Jews"). as being made in Wikipedia's editorial voice. I now see that the edit I reverted had an edit summary saying "per source"; I think I missed seeing that yesterday. If the bits which bothered me did come from cited sources, I don't object to echoing those source-attributed bits in the article. The attribution here is a bit messy, though. The article actually asserts in a long and complicated sentence "Scottish historian William Montgomery Watt notes [...] the Islamic community in Medina who abused Jewish hospitality and threw native Jews out of their own city.", attributing the characterization to Watt, and the article cites sources by two authors other than Watt to support the paragraph which contains this sentence.

I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to fix this up if it needs fixing up. If there are viewpoints out there in other sources which don't characterize the city as being tha native Jews' "own" and/or which characterize this as not being an abuse of Jewish hospitality, please observe WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What sources?
1) What is the problem with primary sources? Everywhere else this is a sign of quality. 2) What secondary and tertiary sources do you want? 3) The article starts out with a load of very recent or rather recent 'Western' scholarship on this. Shouldn't it give an idea of the traditional account first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simha (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi protection
Umarabubakr (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024
Remove this "and (based on prophetic vision) of conspiring to kill Muhammad" in:

Scottish historian William M. Watt notes the presence in Khaybar of the Banu Nadir, who were working with neighboring Arab tribes to protect themselves from Medina's Muslim community, who had earlier attacked and exiled Jewish tribes, accusing them of violating the Charter of Medina and (based on prophetic vision) of conspiring to kill Muhammad.[13][14][15]

William Watt does not say this and the only source given that states this does not reference where he has got this information from:

[14] Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. p. 14. ISBN 0-8276-0198-0. Historian48 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅. ⸗ Antrotherkus ❲ Talk to me! ❳ ⸗ 23:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)