Talk:Constitution of Medina/Archive 1

Untitled
Though there are many sites on the web claiming that the Constitution of Medina is the oldest written constitution, this appears not to be correct. For instance, the Solonian Constitution was much earlier (6th century BCE).

Crust 29 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)

For a more detailed discussion, see the talk page of Constitution (under the heading First Constitution?).

Crust 17:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction
The text of the article says: "including Muslims, Jews, Christians[1] and pagans.[2][3]' There were no Christians in Medina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.108.101.54 (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sahifah
'صحيفة المدينة Ṣaḥīfat ul-Madīnah' means 'the Scroll of Medina'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilaila (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

summary
The current summary seems quite misleading in that it refers to Jews in a way that implies the whole Jewish people - yet the document purely relates to realtions between the various Arab tribes, Muslim and Jewish, in the immediate area of Medinia.

Also badly needs links to the full text. -- ninianc

The orginal Arabic states variously Jews or the clients of specific Arab tribes which are the local Jewish clans. However, the document does not state nor imply that Jewish clans outside of Medina were to be treated otherwise. One can look at the document as spelling out a nascent pluralism envisioned in early Islamic history. Article 25: "The Jews of Banu 'Awf are one community with the believers (i.e. Muslims). To the Jews their religion and to the Muslims their religion."

ibn battutah


 * The pact was made between Muhammad and the Jews of Jathrib/Medina and not with anyone else. Str1977 (smile back) 11:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

622?
Is there a source for 622? It has got to be 624.


 * Constitution of Medina (date debated) -- Muhammad


 * c. 623 --

Great. Publicola 08:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no firm date for the drafting of the consitution of Medina other then shortly after the hijra. Traditional sources, i.e. Ibn Ishaq's (in Ibn Hisham’s rescension of) Sirat Rasul Allah or Abu ‘Ubayd's Kitab al-Amwal, do not give a specific date but imply by placement within a historical chronology a date within 5 months of the hijra in 622. The akhbar tradition documents its drafting within 8 months of the hijra through the reports of Annas b. Malik. Furthermore, modern scholarship demonstrates that the constition of Medina is a composite document which evolved over a number of years.

See R. B. Serjeant. "The Constitution of Medina." or also M. Watt. Muhammad in Medina.

Ibn Battutah

Article Accuracy
The article ignores the historic sources and relies on modern radings of the event. It is not true that the treaty was unilateral even if Lewis said that. Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham state that it was a multilateral one otherwise there is no point of listing all the names of the jewish tribes in the treaty. Also when the treaty is read in its Arabic version one can see that it refers to Muhammad as "Muhammad" and as "Prphet" since not all the signees of the treaty concured to that. I think a full translation of the treaty has to be included in this article so that the reader can see for himself.Marwan123 16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether it was a unilateral decree on Muhammad's part or a multilateral treaty negotiated among multiple parties. However, the fact that the names of the Jewish tribes are listed in the treaty doesn't really bear on the question. Crust 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Crust for your reply. I think it must be dealt with as a multilateral treaty unless other documents show otherwise. It is written as if it was a treaty and its wording indicates that. Like I said in my previous comment, the treaty refers to Muhammad by "Muhammad" and not by "Prophet" ". Had it been unilateral, Muhammad would have proclaimed himself a prophet in it. What one can argue though is whether all the Jewish tribes were included in this treaty or not. The listing of the names of some Jewish tribes indicates that those tribes were a side in the treaty while other tribes like "Banu Quraitha" may not have been. I think this an important point that the article should address.Marwan123 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article in general is very poor, it ignores the historical context and the significance of the constitution (i.e. the formation and nature of the Umma, as instituting the first Islamic state, what information it gives about the early community) while excessively focusing on the Jewish tribes (which are not mentioned directly specifically the three main ones but through their clan affiliations). The article is also inaccurate-Yathrib was not at war with its neighbours (Who Khaybar?) but it was internal tribal fighting which was renting apart Medina and hence their solicitation of Mohammad to come as mediator see Ibn Ishaq, Al-Waqidi or any intro to Islamic history book for that matter. The problem with whether the constitution was a multilateral agreement or unilateral declaration is colored by its political ramifications (especially read through 20th and 21st century biases) in regards to the conflict with Al-Nadir, Qaynuqa and Qurayzah. i.e. if it was a unilateral declaration the conflict with the Jewish tribes were primarily and unjustifiably initiated by the Muslims where as a multilateral agreement points to an agreement broken by the Jewish tribes and hence the conflict. The sources point to a multilateral agreement as does the document itself however, due to its implications the matter will remain contentious. Ibn battutah 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Article is wrong
See Banu Qurayza and. I'll work on it in a couple days when I can get the sources. The constitution was imposed unilaterally by Muhammad after he killed all the Jews. Arrow740 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well User:Itaqallah cleaned it up. There is no "refutation" anywhere, by the way. Arrow740 03:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * err, no. Banu Qurayza isn't a very good article at all. strange that you aren't removing the "tertiary source" article written by Watt from that article, and this exemplifies your double standards here. EoI is an academic resource, and an exception to WP:RS were you slightly even aware of the guideline. why don't you consult Beit Or about that? i have shown on the diplomat page that most academics accept the general historicity of the constitution, and that the Jews were participants. do stop this tendentious editing and baiting, and please stop removing sourced material.  ITAQALLAH   04:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good for you, you can look at my contributions. They accept the historicity but not that it was brokered by Muhammad shortly after he arrived in Medina. In fact he instituted it single-handedly after he had done away with almost all of the Jews so the fact that they were included in the document is not worthy of note. Whether or not EoI is an exception to the rule I am "slightly even aware" of is not the main objection here, it is the fact that the inclusion of the EoI quote skews this article from NPOV. Arrow740 04:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "he instituted it single-handedly after he had done away with almost all of the Jews" what you obstinately refuse to acknowledge is that many academics disagree with this theory. the EoI quote does not skew the article, as you have fundamentally mistaken neutral point of view for no point of view. whatever academics think, we reflect in the article and proportion it according to prevelance in academic circles. and, unfortunately for you, nearly all academics concur that the agreements drawn by Muhammad here were a masterstroke.  ITAQALLAH   05:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Though hardly perfect, Banu Qurayza is a far better article than is Muhammad as a diplomat in several respects; indeed the latter continues to suffer from avoiding this very episode, which, among others, can only have represented either the failure or insincerity of Muhammad's diplomacy.Proabivouac 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exiling and killing all your political opponents doesn't count as "diplomacy." Some masterstroke. We need to present a neutral point of view. Presenting Welch's POV without a balancing one makes this impossible. Arrow740 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * please do not mistake "neutral point of view" for "giving all view points equal validity" (as i mentioned here), which is something we do not do. we take into consideration the prevelance of academic opinions, and then proportion it likewise in order to avoid granting undue weight to minority opinions.  ITAQALLAH   19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lulling one's opponents into complacency, or creating a political situation in which they feel unable to react in the ways they need to, is certainly diplomacy, and perhaps a "masterstroke." What it's not, and can't be, is both successful diplomacy and a peaceful solution; were the goal a peaceful solution, it were a miserable failure. In either case, as it's not to us to decide, we must mention the real-world outcome of this "agreement" for the Jews of Medina. It's unacceptable that this "Constitution" be hailed as a triumph when it's universally acknowledged to have failed (again, unless it were only deception, or came after the conflict was settled by force).Proabivouac 09:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * of course, there was some impact of this constitution as Watt observes. yes, it did indeed fall apart eventually, whether or not it indicates a failure in diplomacy on Muhammad's part is debatable. despite that, most agree that it was a wise move, and very few academics resort to attributing sinister underlying intentions to Muhammad.  ITAQALLAH   19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did it institute dhimmitude or was, for example, jizya a later invention? Why wasn't he consistent, if so? Arrow740 10:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * jizya and general dhimma status was enforced post-Khaybar.  ITAQALLAH   19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't relied too much on Islamic sources because of religious fanatics behavior. The non-Muslim sources must be taken as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.106.25 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No consensus
Reuven Firestone summarizes the scholarly debate as follows: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118) Arrow740 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * what you fail to understand is that this does not negate Muhammad having engaged in an agreement beforehand - the dispute is over the dating of the text we have today, and whether it is from the earlier periods or reflects later agreements.  ITAQALLAH   05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You can call it an agreement but that's about all you can do. You can't call it the Constitution of Medina. Arrow740 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to file an RfC. "Most scholars" is weasel-wording. Prove that over 50% percent of scholars believe what you claim. Arrow740 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * see Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat. "You can't call it the Constitution of Medina" actually, you can, as numerous academics such as Serjeant and Watt suggest that it comprises of numerous, seperate agreements.  ITAQALLAH   07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i don't know what "most scholars" think, but i do know that a substantial number of scholars do assign it an early dating.  ITAQALLAH   07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, there is no proof of anything regarding the Constitution. It is not known if it is a unified document or more of an amalgamation. Second, assuming that the speculation that it is a series of documents is correct, the dating of the proposed independent sections is in no way clear. Third, you have admitted that you inserted unsourced information that you do not know to be true; this is disappointing. Arrow740 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i reverted your removal which was tantamount to vandalism. i did not write the intro passage, that was done by someone else.  ITAQALLAH   07:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should be more attentive in your edits. How can you possibly claim that the Constitution was written in 622? Arrow740 07:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * maybe you should be more attentive to what the prose actually says :|  ITAQALLAH   07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "the dating of the proposed independent sections is in no way clear" if you were paying attention on Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat you would have known that Serjeant attempts to do just that. regardless, such a concern is irrelevant, it doesn't stop the scholars from declaring with certainty that there was indeed such a constitution.  ITAQALLAH   07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there was! It is the date that makes it relevant. If the date is not known it is irrelevant. If there were almost no Jews left in Medina and everyone obeyed Muhammad anyway, it is irrelevant. We cannot know that that is not the case (as I suspect it was). Arrow740 07:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * this is where you must read my first post in this section. the dating of the text we have today is what is disputed.  ITAQALLAH   07:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you see that the text we have today is all we have to work with? Arrow740 07:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's have a constructive discussion about this please, rather than arguing? Now it's my understanding that the document that is now known as the "Constitution of Medina" essentially comes from only one source, Ibn Ishaq, who didn't expressly give a date for it but put it after the hijra but before the agreement of brotherhood between the Ansar and the Muhajirun. There is much scholarly debate about several topics: whether Ibn Ishaq had a single source or whether he compiled the document from several other documents, whether the document is really from the early Medinan period or a later period, and so forth. All of this debate can be discussed in the article, but the point remains that when someone says "Constitution of Medina" they mean Ibn Ishaq's document. Does what I've said make sense? --bainer (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please edit the article for yourself. Itaqallah's current version is making all sorts of claims, some at odds with each other. Arrow740 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * not quite. one of the most prominent versions is indeed that of Ibn Ishaq, though as Serjeant states, az-Zuhri; Tabari; Abu Ubayd; and Ibn Kathir all seem to have their own versions also. as scholars conceive different theories about the constitution, it's more appropriate to state that Ibn Ishaq's version is a representation of the Constitution/agreements made by Muhammad.  ITAQALLAH   00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we know that there was a unified document during Muhammad's time? Arrow740 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC dispute at Constitution
There is a NPOV dispute going on at Talk:Constitution, there is one editor who has declared himself to be an "expert" and has declared that there are "Principles of Successful Constitutions" without stating explicitly what the principles are, he is trying to write that they must come from Aristotle, Plato, and John Mason or else they "don't count" as successful Constitutions. I responded that this was highly POV and gave a number of counter examples including this one, but by Circular logic, he argues that my examples don't count as "successful" because they didn;t come from Aristotle, Plato, and John Mason, therefore they cannot possibly be regarded as "successful". Please share your comments. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Medina Charter is not tribal customs But actually it comes from Sharia Law essence
Dear Sir/ Madam

To say that { this political entity was not governed by Islamic Law (sharia) but rather by established tribal customs}..i.e making it SECULAR ..That is absolutely is incorrect  and not accurate.

'''The "ENTIRE  Medina" Charter is centered around justice for all, its essence comes from Sharia  Law, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to be Secular for many reasons but to make it short I will mention just few of them.

Prophet Muhammad Himself Was NOT ALLOWED to legislate or say anything that NOT Commanded to him from GOD Quran.[69:44-50]

'''Had he (Muhammad) forged and attributed lies concerning Us, We would have seized him by his right hand, And would have cut off his main vein. Absolutely no one among you could have kept Us away from him. And it is certainly a reminder for the righteous! And of course We know, that among you are those who disbelieve Thus, this Qur’an will definitely be the source of anguish for the disbelievers.

The Prophet PBUH was Not SECULAR to legislate “Rules” were NOT given to him from his Lord. Any rules that he Legislated had to comply with The Quran and operate under Islamic Laws '''[5:49] And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which God hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is God's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious'''. See also the previous verse 5:48 that emphatically state to rule them by GOD's Laws ALONE

The Foundation of Islamic State is JUSTICE

'''[4:058] Verily ALLAH commands you to give over the trusts to those entitled to them, and that, when you judge between people, you judge with justice. And surely, excellent is that with which ALLAH admonishes you. ALLAH is All-Hearing, All-Seeing''' See also 16:90,3:018,4:135.and Many other Verses in Quran

All these accounts just to show that Prophet was Not going to allow “Medina Constitution”  to exist If it was based on “SECULAR” Laws that NOT comply with The Quran and NOT operate under Islamic Laws.It is  emphatically state in Quran that the Prophet had  to rule people by GOD's Laws ALONE which is in template  of the  Medina Charter. In short Medina Charter actually had to be operated under the Quranic Tenants that is the true example Khilafa state to have a Charter that Operate under Islamic Law.

To support your argument that { this political entity was not governed by Islamic Law (sharia) but rather by established tribal customs}..i.e just Secular Laws.It will be beneficial if you can provide specific example of an element embodied in the charter which has NO Basis in the Quran and its essence.

Happy haytham 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The cause for division here between the perceived diference in meaning between secularity and divine command is easily removed when we consider that: 'Secularity (adjective form secular[1], meaning: "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied to any particular religion. 'The Holy Quran guides towards recognizing all prophets as prophets of the same God, so that all religions guiding upon righteousness and truth are in fact of One Allah. Muhammad (saws), this messenger that made the Gods One God. Enjoining upon truth and good deeds being a Universal form of righteousness defined in the Quran it does not discriminate between religious or non-religious belief. Essential virtues of the Quran are simply Universal. It could be deducted that in many ways the Quran and Muhammad saws share common universal virtues with concepts such as secularity. However, perceived diferences between philosophy and religion may be fuelled by the misuse of the proper meaning of words for the sake of minority interests which diverge from the universal virtues. 41.137.70.96 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting
I randomly came across this page while doing some copy editing and tried to make some minor improvements. The only two things that might be problematic were: Cheers, -- B figura (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * my treatment of a run on sentence in the intro (I tried to eliminate some redundant verbs, and hopefully didn't change any meanings)
 * I also changed a paragraph on the Ummah to past tense, as it seemed to be discussing the Ummah within a historical context. For such a discussion, I think the past tense is appropriate.

Ummah
I have incorporated the previous paragraph about the ummah into a more comprehensive, readable one that makes use of more sources than just Serjeant. I have also tried to use this to tie the drafting of the Constitution of Medina into the larger picture of the evolving Muslim community.

Any suggestions or improvements are welcome! Dynamo152 (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More accurate sources
Most sources are not available and do not reflect the presented and mentioned definition. Qadeer Nil (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In main sources section: multiple sources are repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.245.181.107 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ijaz daavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.212.210 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This was the first written constitution in the history of the world. Except for all the others
Today I removed this line from the opening paragraph: "This was the first written constitution in the history of the world." It is quite clearly incorrect as several other articles on Wikipedia show, of which I noted the main two in the edit summary (Constitution and History of democracy). I have tried to verify the two references given for the claim here but am unable as they are book references with no accompanying text. On the face of it, considering that (at minimum) two other articles give numerous prior examples of written constitutions which themselves have articles, all referenced, it seems a no brainer to remove this claim. And yet, it was reverted.

If it is to stay in then it should be placed somewhere else in the article similar to the line in the Analysis section "An analysis of the Charter of Medina was written by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, who argues that it is the first written charter" (and it should be noted, that if you follow the reference link for that claim it does not argue anything, just state it. It should also be removed). I'm not going to edit the article to include these claims as I don't have access to the sources. If the claims should be kept then I'll leave it to someone else with access or knowledge of those to add them in, but I can certainly take them out based on what the opposing references from other articles say. Yb2 (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand your claim, I'm willing to provide you the source myself as part of the resource exchange (or you can check Google Books if the preview is available for that page), I am the one who brought the second reference (from a reputable publisher called Routledge), which I find more credible since academics are involved like Gary Bouma that can be verified quickly. I haven't checked the first reference, since I have my doubts on it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have verified the first reference, it is stated there that: "This was, in fact, the first written constitution in the history of the world." 21:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I was unable to find a preview and Google Books was no exception, so the resource exchange would be a good idea, though I've not used it before. Thank you. Yb2 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you also able to expand on the reference or to provide it via resource exchange? A bare claim (by the source) without any supporting evidence doesn't count for much, re: Verifiability. Yb2 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the argue claim further down, by the way. It seemed silly to leave that in after I mentioned it was rubbish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yb2 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by expand? I already provided a quote from that source, which is an RS. The author (of course) cited the claim that it was the first. Furthermore the "Khatab, Sayed; Bouma, Gary D. (2007). Democracy in Islam" states in an explicit fashion that: "The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule."
 * So we have two RSs who support that claim, which I think is sufficient. 00:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * We have a massive weight of evidence in the opposite direction, so the claims on their own are moot. If the claims give reasoning, or mention why the other claims are incorrect then it would support the statement "This was the first written constitution in the history of the world." Since they don't (so far as I know) the statement is inaccurate and should be removed, and hence, those are not accurate or reliable sources. So do they discuss how or why they believe it is the first written constitution in the history of the world? Do they mention any of the other numerous competing claims?
 * I'll be happy to either a) remove the claim b) add a section that mentions the claims and expands on their reasoning, but which also points to the much larger body of evidence in the other direction, or c) add an accuracy dispute marker to the article. This is what neutral POV is about, not just sticking in bold statements of "fact", unopposed, because someone said it. Yb2 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how WikiPedia works. If you feel that such a statement is accurate then, provide RSs who state otherwise and we would, per WP:UNDUE policies, reflect all the opinions without giving any due weight. However, for now, we have two RSs, one from Routledge and the other from a reputable Muslim scholar who mention that it was the "first" "constitution" in the world. Removing such would be tantamount to deleting sourced content, which is prohibited by wiki standards.
 * 13:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * No, that is how Wikipedia works when unsupported statements that are wildly inaccurate are used, and are you saying that I need to copy every reference from the other 2 articles about constitutions into this one in order to keep these 2 unsupported statements in? OK, I'm happy to do that. What should I call the section? Is this the first written constitution? is my suggestion. Then you can fill in the "Yes it is" section with the reasoning those refs give. Yb2 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bring two or more RSs that  state that this wasn't the first written constitution. Copying material from the other article which only lists descriptions of each one would be tantamount to original research (WP:OR). 19:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * It wouldn't be original research because it's a) referenced b) on another Wikipedia page which therefore means it's not WP:OR (or should be removed from those pages). Secondly, they don't need to state explicitly that the constitution of Medina isn't the first written constitution, just that any other prior constitution was written because it would implicitly mean the same thing. Lastly, you seem to be arguing that different pages of Wikipedia can contradict each other on straightforward facts, and that articles exist in a vacuum. You need to find a policy to support that, because it sounds like more nonsense. I'm going to start the section I described here, and anyone may contribute. When it's finished I'll move it into the main article, and then you can either roll it back, at which point I'll mark this for dispute, or you can add the full reasoning from the references and contribute meaningfully. It's your choice. Yb2 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (a) It isn't, you still didn't provide an RS that explicitly state otherwise, (b) it's original research since WP:OR includes in its scope "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or  imply  a conclusion not stated by the sources." Not the use of the verb "imply" which you suggested in you saying "implicitly". Please stop ignoring and arguing against sourced content referenced by RSs.
 * 20:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * You're stretching it with the implication point, but instead of me stopping arguing why don't you make the content of those sources available? Yb2 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I already provided quotes from each of those sources, the Mustafa al-A'zami source: quote-unquote "This was, in fact, the first written constitution in the history of the world.", whereas the second source, namely, the "Khatab, Sayed; Bouma, Gary D. (2007). Democracy in Islam" states in an explicit fashion that: quote-unqutoe "The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule." What do you want more?
 * 21:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Obviously, I was hoping for some idea of how they'd come to that conclusion. Regardless, if you look at this help page regarding synth and original research it states "Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison", which is not original research but is through implication. Also, looking at Inaccuracy I now think it's wrong to remove the claim and the references, as it says inaccurate refs shouldn't always be excluded. However, looking at the next section of the article it states "Inductive reasoning based on reliable source statements" as a measure of inaccuracy, which means that since other pages of Wikipedia have referenced material giving written constitutions that are prior to this one, and since there cannot be two (or more) first written constitutions in the world, the statement in this article fails the test of accuracy even though it has verifiable refs from reliable sources. So, we can either use my earlier suggestion and make it a new section, giving lots of weight to the majority view, or, taking the suggestion from Inaccuracy we can "reduce the due weight that is assigned to such material" by changing the statement and adding a note. Something like "There are claims that this is the world's first written constitution, but there are several competing claims, and this is not a majority view." with links to the other articles. But I'm open to suggestions. Yb2 (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ending the argument
This is getting out of hand, The Constitution of Medina is definitely not the first Constitution in the world, the book clearly says "The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule.", I think we should reach an agreement as fast possible and not drag this non-issue out. And yb2 do you still the need the book? So you can verify yourself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on, was implying that both references used here are inaccurate, based on what another Wikipedia article says? WP:WPNOTRS clearly says (and even highlights in boldface) that Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. Anyway, the current phrasing looks ok now, being a more correct representation of its cited source, so good job there, Alexis. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally forgot about that, thanks for underlining it! Thanks also to for ending the dispute! 20:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * That looks better, Alexis, but it still gives undue weight to a minority view. I don't need the book to verify, I was looking for the reasoning behind the statements so as to find out why they think that - first and foremost for my own understanding, which is why I was on Wikipedia in the first place! - and then, to work out whether it needs other voices added i.e. due weight; I've little doubt they state it if you've seen it, you seem trustworthy :), I've covered that. The articles themselves are not usable as references, but the references for the statements within the articles are. Therefore, this article still gives undue weight to unsubstantiated claims. I've been asking around with history buffs, and no one I've asked so far even thinks it should be called a constitution, let alone the first written one. It's a charter or a treaty in their eyes, so I have to wonder about the whole slant of this article and those who've been updating it. My preferred solution, as I wrote above, would be to add a note linking to the other articles' sections regarding other constitutions, as suggested in Inaccuracy. Highlight that it's a minority view and direct people to where they can see the reasoning for that. I can't see what the problem with that could be? It's not supposed to be propoganda. Yb2 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that you have been given a quote, it should be easy to google for an (illegal) online version of the quote's chapter. By the way, it is WP:OR to claim that it is a minority view without giving sources mentioning that it is a minority view, as is your reasoning based on personal inquiries. What is the problem anyway with how it is written at the moment? I don't see other constitutions claiming to be the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand where you coming from it may sound like an exceptional claim, but as far as I can see it is not. The other reference maybe considered a propaganda but that one was removed. Neither is this a minority view. It is accurate as far I can see. This is definitely not a treaty, but the word Charter can be used. This is the earliest and first legal document for Muhammad, establishing rules with the Jewish of Medina by creating a community. And this is the constitution they would base their rules on. I think the key phrase here is the "constitutional rule" Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the change is better, but it's disingenuous. What I meant about propoganda is this claim being cited at all in this way in the article. This is an encyclopaedia, we should strive for accuracy and neutral point of view. This is not that, and playing around with words and technicalities won't change that. Yb2 (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by disingenuous ? I believe the statement is indeed neutral point of view, both authors have no stake in it to spread any falsehood and I have checked their credentials. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "By the way, it is WP:OR to claim that it is a minority view without giving sources mentioning that it is a minority view, as is your reasoning based on personal inquiries." Is that a joke? If Uruguay won the first World Cup then England can't claim they won the first one! There are at least 6 other tournaments before them, it's not original research it's just bloody obvious. Seriously, am I having to argue this? It's a minority view because of the NUMEROUS OTHER EXAMPLES GIVEN WITH REFERENCES ON THE ARTICLES I PREVIOUSLY GAVE.
 * Sumeria, 2300 BC. Code of Ur-Nammu of Ur, 2050 BC. Lipit-Ishtar Code, 1870 BC. Code of Hammurabi, 1754 BC. Hittite laws, ca. 1650–1100 BCE. Draconian constitution of Athens, the birthplace of democracy, 621 BC. Solonian Constitution of Athens, the birthplace of democracy, 594 BC. Cleisthenes reformed the constitution of Athens, the birthplace of democracy, 508 BC. Aristotle makes the formal distinction between ordinary law and constitutional law, establishing ideas of constitution and constitutionalism, 350 BC, in Athens, the birthplace of democracy. He researched several preceding constitutions. Law of the Twelve Tables, Roman constitution, 450 BC. Codex Theodosianus, AD 438. Codex repetitæ prælectionis, 534 AD. Edicts of Ashoka, 269 BCE to 232 BCE. Note that Ashoka was a king, but India had democracy from the 3rd Century BC. I haven't even reached the Dark Ages yet… minority view indeed! Not all of these need to be written, or be proper constitutions, or part of a democracy (not that Medina under Muhammad could be called democratic without question). The point is, there's a hell of lot of others in line before this claim. You can do what you all like because I'm tired of this, but I'll leave this here as a sign that this article isn't being edited like other historical articles on Wikipedia, and the attempts to get around straightforward rules and claim things that a 5 year old could argue against is astounding. Original research… I think it's quite shameful behaviour. Yb2 (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem with many of those you mentioned like the Code of Hammurabi were simply a code of justice, not a constitutions for a constitutional rule in a democracy, Hammurabi himself was a ruler of the First Babylonian Empire while Muhammad here was acting as statesman to forge a new community known as ummah between Muslims and Jews in Medina by creating this legal document. The criteria is very narrow and the authors were smart enough to narrow it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Nobody claims that the Constitution of Medina was the first constitution ever, but merely the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule. Note the narrowed down criteria. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I already made that point, "The point is, there's a hell of lot of others in line before this claim."… and then you conveniently ignore Athens while focussing on an easier target? There are so many in the queue in front for you to argue that there is no way the form of words that have been chosen now (or those that were originally there) can be there on their own without giving undue weight to a minority opinion. It's one thing to try and find a more appropriate form of words, but the gymnastics involved along with the others here that keep harping on about original research (laughable) and rubbish like that is what makes this whole exercise disigenuous. Give it NPOV, show it's a minority opinion instead of trying to give undue weight to what are minority views. You should be willing to update the info on the Constitution/History of Democracy articles too, if it's a good reference and the claim is valid I'm sure no one watching those pages will mind ;-) Yb2 (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In all cases, you're making original research WP:OR, and "this includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." So please provide a reliable source (RS) that state explicitly that the constitution of Medina was not the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule, or else your arguments are void as they belong to the class of WP:OR, which is strictly forbidden in WP. 12:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I dealt with that above, see 00:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC). It's very definitely not original research. You may respond to the already given arguments with new ones, I'm not interested in your restatement of erroneous belief designed to safeguard these ridiculous claims. Thanks. Yb2 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because inductive reasoning is sometimes allowed here does not mean that it is in this case. While you're at it, read WP:SYNTHESIS :
 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
 * So please provide a reliable source (RS) that state explicitly that the constitution of Medina was not the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule. That shouldn't be difficult for you if you believe that it's accurate, while the other point (which is found in at least 2 RSs) isn't.
 * Thanks.
 * 18:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * But okay, let's put aside—for the sake of argumentation—WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, can we still say that the claim is inaccurate? The answer is an emphatic NO, here's a reference that deals exactly with that question: Hamidullah, Muhammad. The First Written Constitution in the World: An Important Document of the Time of the Holy Prophet, 3rd. ed. 1975, Ashraf Press; Lahore, Pakistan.
 * "Although the rules and regulations of a country can be found in a more or less written form everywhere, yet, in spite of strenuous search, I could not find any instance of the constitution of a country, as distinct from ordinary laws, reduced to writing, before the time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad(‫)صلى الله عليه وسلم‬. True, Mann Smriti (500 B.C.) mentions the duties of a king and the Artha Shastra (Science of Politics) by Kautilya (300 B.C.) and the books of Aristotle, written about the same time, contain complete treatises on politics. Aristotle described the constitutions of 1584 of his contemporary city-states in many countries, including India.5 From among these monographs, only the constitution of Athens has come down to us. It was discovered on papyrus in Egypt just 50 Vears ago and was published in the year 1891. It has also been translated into English and other languages. But writings of this kind are either in the nature of text-books or “advice-books” to princes, or are historical accounts of the constitutions of certain places. None of these enjoys the dignity of an authoritative constitution of a state issued by the sovereign of the country."

- Hamidullah Muhammad


 * I think this ends the debate. 18:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

POV dispute
Right now, the title should be a matter of dispute, and these claims. I've gone and asked for a third party to look at this (a group) and found no dissent for my view (in fact, stronger) and I've given extensive reasoning, and so far we've moved to something better, but this isn't going to cut it. I regard the excessive blocking based on "original research" to be disigenuous and motivated by POV pushing, so I'm going to mark this as disputed and hope someone else comes along to fix this. Personally, I think it would've been better if you'd added a section and shown several viewpoints on this instead of trying to defend this article as if it exists in a vacuum. See NPOV_dispute for more suggestions. Yb2 (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please check my post, 18:56, 11 March 2016, which doesn't use WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS as a point of argumentation. 19:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I disagree, but that would be a useful addition to this article and the other two articles I mentioned, especially in a section highlighting the different viewpoints. Yb2 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We now have 3 sources, including 2 that add many details into how it is the first constitution in the world. To mention disagreements in a section it will be required from you (since you're the one who made the claim, per WP:BURDEN) to provide a reference that explicitly state: "The Constitution of Medina was not the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule".
 * 21:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * No, it wouldn't, because that would be illogical and a misuse of the guidelines, repeated misuse. I won't continue to argue this point with you unless you can provide new reasoning. Yb2 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that you asked for some explanation about implied conclusions (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). Two editors there told you that implying a conclusion without sources stating that conclusion, is original research. Do you understand it now? So what are these different viewpoints you are speaking of? Do they only say that 1) X's Code was the first constitution, or 2) that the Medinan Constitution claims this position but actually was preceded by X's Code? If you add the former to this article, you would commit WP:SYNTHESIS. If you truly find something like the latter (a source that explicitly questions the claim of the Medinan Constitution), then I will not be standing in your way anymore. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, the claim will remain in the article as we have 3 RSs stating it, including 2 RSs that go into more details into how it was the first one. 13:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Athenian democracy
I see what you are saying about Athens, but if you never wanted me to go after Hammurabi you should have never mentioned him, I was waiting for a suitable time to mention Athens, and I will be mentioning here. Based on the authors words from the book

In page 36-37 of the book, the authors discuss democracy before and after Islam. Here is what they say "It is well established that democracy existed before the birth of Islam, but the democratic attitude towards individuals and groups had never reached the kind of attitude emphasised by Islam as outlined earlier. For many scholars democracy began in ancient Egypt in the period 2280–2132 BCE. They based their view on two documents known as ‘the Document of the Wise Ebour’ in Leiden Museum and ‘the Papyrus of Nefrorwho’ in Leningrad Museum. For others, democracy was a form of political regime that had played a major role in the history of the city-state of ancient Greece in the fourth century BCE when there was a revolution against the authority of ‘clergymen and religion’ Also, Plato had come back to consider what was missed by Homer and arrived at the shore of ancient Egypt’s idea, which appeared 2,200 years before him. In either case, the fact is that the classic form of Greek democracy lasted only for about 200 years in a city-state of a few thousand privileged citizens, and was destroyed by invasion and war. Its long-term durability in the face of population growth was never tested."

Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was, again, that there are numerous other examples to work through before these claims get a shout - not that every one of them would be valid - hence the dispute. I'll add, that what you've written only proves my point, that the claims aren't valid in the original or the update form, and this should be a section. I think what you've written is excellent, and should be included as they'll improve the article no end, though I'd remove the heavy bias of superiority you've added. I'll have a go at that over the weekend and see what you think. Yb2 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What other claims are there? I thought the dispute was over the first constitution in the whole wide world. What part exactly proves your point? Also where is the "heavy bias of superiority" Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be pointed out that using the term "Constitution" for this document here and its place in the "History of Democracy" may be anachronistic.


 * In this rather one-sided discussion, it is perhaps useful to have a look at Anver Emon's paper, "Reflections on the "Constitution of Medina": An Essay on Methodology and Ideology in Islamic Legal History", UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, 1 (2001/02), 103-133.


 * Citing from the conclusions (p. 133): "The Constitution of Medina is likely not a constitution at all. Relying on historical sources from the medieval period, it appears that few medieval Muslim authors paid serious attention to this agreement. Rather, they referred to it in passing as little more than a treaty negotiated by the Prophet in accordance with his treaty-making powers. The fact that recent Muslim authors often address a presumed constitutional theory implicit in the document may have more to do with twentieth century politics in the Muslim world than with anything inherent in the text." AstroLynx (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * p. 104 "Whether the Constitution is in fact an authentic document is not at issue in this study. Rather, this study evaluates the secondary literature on  the Constitution."
 * So why are you bringing up a paper on the secondary literature on the Constitution in a discussion on the Constitution itself--in particular whether it was the first constitution in the world.
 * 14:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Nobody is questioning the authenticity of the document but it appears to be debatable whether it should be regarded as a "constitution". AstroLynx (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC).


 * There are literally dozens of articles, books, peer-reviewed papers, which refer to it as a constitution. The minority view of Anver Emon should be mentioned, but not made in front of all the available RSs. 16:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Sure, and most of them will probably cite Hamidullah's publication as source, but there are also several publications referring to it as a treaty, a charter, an agreement, a municipal order, etc. Several peer-reviewed publications put it between quotes or refer to it as the so-called "Constitution of Medina". Should these not also be mentioned? AstroLynx (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "most of them will probably cite Hamidullah's publication as source"-- and then what? Those are still RSs. Just because they refer to it as a 'treaty', 'charter', 'agreement', ...etc DOES NOT mean that the authors themselves believe that it wasn't a constitution. Arguing as such constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR.
 * 17:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I have difficulty in following your argument as you seem to be putting words in my mouth which I did not say. Where do I claim "DOES NOT mean that the authors themselves believe that it wasn't a constitution"? I merely pointed out that there are also authors who are of the opinion that the Medina document hardly qualifies as a "constitution". As I pointed out earlier, using such terms may be anachronistic, similarly like claiming that the document has a place in the history of democracy. AstroLynx (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"here are also several publications referring to it as a treaty, a charter, an agreement, a municipal order, etc." From my experience and knowledge you seem to infer that the authors think that it isn't a 'constitution' simply because they referred to it by these terms. 17:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * OK, that is clear now. If these authors believed that it was a constitution wouldn't they have named it as such? As I read those publications, it seems to me that they did/do not view it as a constitution. By the way, you do not have to ping me every time - I will keep an eye on this page. AstroLynx (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it would be in violation of WP:OR & WP:SYNTHESIS, the exception is when the authors explicitly state that they don't consider it to be a 'Constitution'. 17:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I think you are now bending the rules in your own favour. So, when an author writes that in his opinion the Medina document is a treaty, it has no value because he did not explicitly say that it was NOT a constitution? It is like claiming that 1 + 1 = 2 is an invalid statement because addition tables do not explicitly state that it not 3 (or 4, or 5, etc.). AstroLynx (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "It is like claiming that 1 + 1 = 2 is an invalid statement because addition tables do not explicitly state that it not 3 (or 4, or 5, etc.)" No, that's not, since that itself constitutes WP:OR.
 * "So, when an author writes that in his opinion the Medina document is a treaty, it has no value"
 * I never used the sentence "it has no value", that's your expression, not mine.
 * I would like to make clear that stating that if an author refers to the Constitution of Medina as a treaty, or charter, then we can't infer that the author thinks that it isn't a constitution since they aren't mutually exclusive, one can call it both a constitution as well as a charter. For instance, Ahmed Al-Dawoody refers to the Constitution of Medina throughout some passages as "document"pp:19–20 and calls it once "a written peace treaty",p:20 this does not negate the fact that he thinks that it is a constitution. (Ahmed al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War, Palgrave Macmillan.)
 * Hope I was clear,
 * Regards. 20:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I do not have access to Ahmed Al-Dawoody's book so I will gladly assume that you are correct. Just to make my point clear, I am not arguing for the removal of the claim. There are evidently scholars who wish to believe this, but the opinions of scholars who do not view the document as a "constitution" should also be mentioned. AstroLynx (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem, one can mention them in the #Analysis section of the article. 13:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Request for Comment

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Although this article deals specifically with the "Constitution of Medina," it is my opinion that there is a place to mention, in passing, a similar pact or covenant made by Muhammad to the Jews living in Arabia, since it applies to the right of non-Muslims. The most appropriate place to add this small note is in the sub-section, "Rights of Non-Muslims," directly after the bullet which reads: The edit which we are suggesting would read as follows:
 * 1) Non-Muslims will not be obliged to take part in religious wars of the Muslims.


 * "In Yemenite Jewish sources, subsequent to the Constitution of Medina, another treaty was drafted between Muhammad and his Jewish subjects, known as kitāb ḏimmat al-nabi, written in the 17th year of the Hijra (638 CE), and which gave express liberty unto Jews living in Arabia to observe the Sabbath and to grow-out their side-locks, but were required to pay the jizya (poll-tax) annually for their protection by their patrons."

This edit will be backed-up by a footnote which reads:
 * "Shelomo Dov Goitein, The Yemenites – History, Communal Organization, Spiritual Life (Selected Studies), editor: Menahem Ben-Sasson, Jerusalem 1983, pp. 288–299. ISBN 965-235-011-7."

If such an edit should be viewed by our fellow co-editors as informative in the general history of relations between non-Muslims, we will add the edit. Thanks in advance. Davidbena (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There were many treaties between Muhammad and other tribes, I don't see any justification in mentioning this particular treaty to the exclusion of others, or even, of mentioning any other treaty in this article. 14:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * All for the edit. There is a big difference between "other tribes" which basically shared the same religion as Muhammad, and those who were "non-Jews," which this sub-section specifically treats about. Knowledge of this covenant will only enlighten historians, rather than distract or take away from anything already written here.Davidbena (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Small precision: by tribes in my first comment, I meant non-Muslim tribes, whether Christian, Jewish or polytheistic. 19:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * The word "non Muslims" in the sub-section duly treats on other non-Jews (e.g. Christians, etc.) However, the reference that we wish to mention here in the sub-section treats specifically on Jews, since they were - no doubt - the largest and most-influential group of non-Muslims in Arabia at that time, and besides, most Christians living in Arabia at that time would have most-likely been affiliated with the Ebionites (a sect of Jews who held Jesus as the Messiah). This comes out by the way Islam has been influenced by the Ebionite-branch of Christianity, which held Jesus as a prophet, but not someone born from immaculate conception (just as the Ebionites believed).Davidbena (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That still, in my opinion, not justify why we should mention that particular treaty. In any case, we'll see what others have to say on this. 11:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Fine. We'll wait and see what others might have to say about the edit. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment leaning toward Oppose. No case is made for including something only tangentially connected to the C of M. Is there not another page where this might go? Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with the reasons stated by Pincrete and CounterTime. If there were similar notes under the other bullet points, I might say go ahead and add it - but there aren't. If there's an article on the treaty mentioned in your proposed edit, you could add a link to it under See also. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First Constitution of Democracy
I'll open this can of worms again, since the sentence (which I have previously removed from the article) "This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule", has too many problems. I am aware that it was constructed (or rather quoted verbatim from a book on sociological matters) in order to solve another matter (at least that's the way I see it) but I don't think that the introduction of this sentence was a very good idea. I will quote the conversation I had on the talkpage of User:CounterTime about this matter below. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:CounterTime, I removed the sentence "This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule", because it is to laden with modern concepts. Probably for effect. The language should be more precise. Also the sources pose some questions. The first publication is clearly (from the summary) a book that, however sympathetic, makes a point that has more to do with today's issues than with history. The second one ia accompanied by a quote that doesn't mention democracy and the third one has no accompanying quote at all. We should consider more careful language. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We should keep wordings as they are—as much as possible—mentioned by WP:RSs, such as the Khatab & Bouma source, which says in a non-implicit fashion: "The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule." We shouldn't edit these words based on mere opinions, such as the ones you stated, otherwise WP:SYNTHESIS would have been allowed. So, kindly, please revert your changes. 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Hello User:CounterTime, I think we need a quote from a work of a certified and dispassionate historian of constitutional law. Not from a work of sociology or hermeneutics. We also should not quote sources verbatim, but that's another question altogether. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Remark how your argument shifted from, '[w]e should not apply this modern concept to [sic] this situation', to 'we need a quote from a work of a certified and dispassionate historian of constitutional law'. Do you have any valid reasons for ignoring what WP:RSs say, and preferring your own opinion over them?
 * 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Perhaps we should also move this discussion to the talkpage of the article. I will do so if you agree. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll remind you that this subject was discussed previously on the talk, the previous consensus was that the "constitution of democracy" wording be kept, you deliberately changed that wording without consulting the talk, or, even, being aware that there existed such discussion in the talk. I invite you—yet again—to revert your changes, and discuss the matter in the talk to build consensus, instead of engaging in tireless reverts.
 * 18:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * As far as I can see, the earlier conversation was more about what a constitution is, and whether it was the first one. That is not my point. I don't object to using the word constitution. I see that including the word democracy was a means to end another conflict. That in itself doesn't make it a very satisfactory reason to include that word. Let's copy this conversation to the talk page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , You say "Remark how your argument shifted from, '[w]e should not apply this modern concept to [sic] this situation', to 'we need a quote from a work of a certified and dispassionate historian of constitutional law' ". That's not a shift. Perhaps I should have said that your preferred sentence needs a quote from a work... etc. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a shift, you first ranted about democracy being a modern construct, and the term shouldn't be used for earlier pre-modern times, then you started ranting about the sources, as if these 3 ones weren't sufficient.
 * In all cases, you violated a consensus that maintained that expression, and this, without first consulting the talk. For the third time, I invite you to cancel your deletions until a consensus is reached in the talk.
 * 19:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * How is "Khatab, Sayed; Bouma, Gary D. (2007). Democracy in Islam. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415425742." a book on "sociological matters" when its main subject is, guess what, a study of democracy in Islam. 19:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Both writers are sociologists and the content matter of the book, as far as I can make out from the summary, deals with a sociological political matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's move on to find language you, I and possibly other users can agree with. I don't mind calling the whole thing a constitution of sorts. I may even consider naming the concept of democracy, although both should obviously have more nuances than previously expressed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the book's content, how is it a "sociological" political matter?
 * By the way, we didn't use 'contradicting' sources.
 * 20:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I'll ping here since he's the one who added the Gary Bouma reference. 20:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * About the text by Hamidullah Muhammad you quoted earlier, I noticed that he mentioned that he could not find any earlier constitutional documents than from the time of Muhammed. He then goes on to mention one quoted by Aristotle, which I found peculiar, but he may have meant it in a more philological manner. The content of the book by Khatab and Bouma is described in the link provided earlier in the article. It doesn't strike me as a work on history or statecraft. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hamidullah actually showed that, properly speaking, the constitution of Medina was the first one in history. Read his text again.
 * Which link are you talking about? 20:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

This one. Also indicating that they may not be talking about the modern concept known today. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quoting that link: "It examines:
 * # principles of Islam's political theory and the notion of democracy therein
 * # the notion of democracy in medieval and modern Muslim thought
 * # Islam and human rights
 * # the contribution of Islamic legal ideas to European legal philosophy and law."
 * I don't see anything referring, or even merely hinting to things that are merely "sociological".
 * 20:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Sociology approaches various subjects from a sociological point of view. The background of the authors should tell you something. They are both sociologists. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed you put a stroke under the word "modern" in "modern muslim thought". That is not what we are discussing here however. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about a sentence we can both agree on. If you have a suggestion I'll be happy to comment. I'm also perfectly willing to come up with something myself, but frankly I'll have to think a little more about that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, but you said earlier that "[t]he content of the book by Khatab and Bouma is described in the link provided earlier in the article", and the description doesn't mention anything sociological.
 * 2) Yes, as an emphasis and a response at the same time, to what you stated: "they may not be talking about the modern concept known today"
 * 3) We may disagree about sentences involving many things, or multiple sentences, or ones detached from the source, but here we're talking about a verbatim sentence from WP:RSs.
 * 20:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I can see that you're not a sociologist, which is fine btw. But these people are not historians. I googled them, and if you open the "authors" tab in that link you can also read more about the authors and their particular fields of expertise. The word "postmodern" in there should tell you a lot. But not to digress. I have an initial proposal for a sentence for you. On which note I should tell you also that Wikipedia has some rule about repeating texts verbatim from sources in the article's text. My proposal would be: "It has been described by some as one of the earliest constitutional documents that included aspects of rule by consent, from the middle ages". I know it's not very boldly worded but somehow the subject matter seems to demand careful wording. It leaves out whatever we understand to be democracy nowadays. It doesn't project that (modern) concept back to a past situation. We are rid of arguing about who was the first and we are also rid of all ancient history (including Aristotle and Athens). We are also rid of a sentence that looks like a poster sticker for a cause. Your (and other people's) thoughts please. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Or even this (let's leave out "by some"): "It has been described as one of the earliest constitutional documents that included aspects of rule by consent, from the middle ages". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That is much worse and it seems you have an agenda to belittle the authors and their credentials just because you disagree with the definition of Constitution of Medina, when did certain people were not allowed to have books about political islam whether sociology or history, stop playing a joke, also the quotation is one sentence, wuth your logic if a sentence in wikipeida taken from a book said King A died in 10 B.C. we have to reword in the way you like. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We now have not only 3 but 4 references, all with extremely similar wordings. 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Only one of them mentions the term "democracy" and that is a work not in the field of history or constitutional law. The sentence is obviously loaded and contains an extraordinary claim that should be supported by more than one work. The only work that mentions the word democracy, is again, a work not in the direct field of history or constitutional law. The sentence also poses problems versus WP:COPYVIO. See also here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I do not mind mentioning this opinion in a dispassionate manner. But it is, and should be treated as, an extraordinary claim. See also here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said it had to be in the field of constitutional law, this is funny, just putting blocks in the road to appease you. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is only an exceptional claim for you, anyone can cry about any claims in Wikipedia. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just a single sentence that doesn't exceed 15 words, bringing WP:COPYVIO here is purely a deliberate attempt to justify deletion of sourced content by a single WP:RS. It isn't an extraordinary claim, just like stating that democracy has its roots in ancient Greece isn't extraordinary. And as I said earlier, note how your argument moved from '[w]e should not apply this modern concept to [sic] this situation', to 'we need a quote from a work of a certified and dispassionate historian of constitutional law', to now '[it is] an extraordinary claim'. It doesn't seem like you're interested in following WP guidelines. Do you have any valid reasons for ignoring what WP:RSs say, and preferring your own opinion over them? 14:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Ok, just to explain myself here: we should not apply this modern concept to this situation, if you would want to do so you would need a quote from a work of a certified and dispassionate historian of constitutional law, preferably more than one since this is an extraordinary claim. That is not too hard to understand I think. I’m not talking about this being a constitution. I’m talking about the use of the word “democracy”.  Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense, why should a "historian of constitutional law" comment on political islam and democracy, you are just making things up now. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alexis Ivanov, your "definition" is the heavy handed result of an attempt to find a compromise where language about this document being the first of some kind could be maintained. Not a very good reason to introduce exceptional claims in an absolute manner. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The beauty is there where no exceptional claim. Just someone like you who is ready to corrupt the article to push their own agenda, it seems you are unhappy. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP is based on verifiable claims, see WP:VERIFIABILITY, here we have an WP:RS that describes it as a 'Constitution of Democracy', using a different wording would require a totally different WP:RS which states that it isn't a constitution of democracy, in any case, we can't supersede our own opinions to ignore wordings and descriptions contained in WP:RS without any valid cause or reason. Please restore the content you deleted. Regards,
 * 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * One more proposition: "It has been described as the earliest constitutional document from the middle ages that included aspects of rule by consent or democracy, although the term democracy wasn’t used at the time.” Note that Khatab and Bouma state that the term democracy wasn’t used at the time on p. 37 of their book.  Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Where in the book exactly which paragraph you searching your quote produced nothing Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that's a very weak argument, that's like saying we shouldn't speak about Pythagoras as a 'Mathematician' since mathematician has carried newer and different connotations, or like stating that Egyptian fractions shouldn't be called 'fractions' since the modern notation now commonly used for fractions only came thousands of years later. Also please stop misquoting Bouma & Khatab since they state on p. 36: "It is well established that democracy existed before the birth of Islam."
 * I would like here to add some other references that speak about it as being the first constitution, this, in addition to the ref provided by leave no doubt that the original wording should be left as is: (brought to you by 17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk))

.
 * I'm talking about the actual term applying to the situation described. Stop making distractions and please react to my proposal. The quote as it stood in the article until recently “This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule” is a bold and exceptional claim by authors that have no explicit expertise in the fields of history or the history of constitutional law. It is also a claim about a remote and nor very well documented episode of history. Their work is clearly intending to make a point (a sympathetic point, but still a point) of a sociological or even political nature. Exceptional claims need exceptionally strong support in the quotes given. The authors of this work do not support the sentence “This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule” in their book with any references from an other primary or secondary source with valid expertise in history or constitutional law. They do state implicitly however on p. 37 of their book that the term under discussion was not used at the time of the constitution of Medina. This does not constitute the exceptionally strong support needed for the bare sentence as it appears in a book written for a purpose other than history or constitutional law. To support a bold claim like that we need specialised references from dispassionate works on history and / or constitutional law, written by experts in that field about the concept we are dealing with. Please look at my suggestion for alternate language. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not an exceptional claim just because you don't like it and you like to remove it, these authors have knowledge about Islam and democracy, so you are just adding and looking for another way to weasel your way through to remove by adding much more obstructions and demands. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I already reacted to your proposal, in fact many times, I will quote the last one: "Frankly, that's a very weak argument, that's like saying we shouldn't speak about Pythagoras as a 'Mathematician' since mathematician has carried newer and different connotations, or like stating that Egyptian fractions shouldn't be called 'fractions' since the modern notation now commonly used for fractions only came thousands of years later. Also please stop misquoting Bouma & Khatab since they state on p. 36: "It is well established that democracy existed before the birth of Islam.""
 * "They do state implicitly however on p. 37 of their book that the term under discussion was not used at the time of the constitution of Medina." Can you give the exact quote? And even then, we should follow their wording.
 * 17:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * The reference is [linked in my quote above. [[User:Hebel|Gerard von Hebel]] (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I read it, but I couldn't find what you were talking about, can you provide the exact quote, please?
 * CounterTime (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * p. 37 (you should be able to click on that) second paragraph. The term democracy was basically not used from the times of the Athenians until the late 18th century. BTW, your remark about p. 36 "It is well established that democracy existed before the birth of Islam." is clearly of topic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but still, that does not mean we should use the very term they used, stating "This was the first constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule". 18:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Here's my proposal, we remove the word "Democracy", alright? Will you be okay with that then? 18:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Well, I do think that it does imply that we should use careful language instead of an absolute statement like the one that stood until recently. Perhaps like the sentences I proposed or others (like you) may propose. We can talk about that of course. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I made that decision only because you were too insisting on not using any derivation of the word 'democracy', so what about "It was the first constitution in the history of the world."? A simple sentence, shared by many  WP:RSs, without any controversy.
 * 18:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Sorry, I didn't read your comment before I wrote my last and I'm thinking on my feet here a little. The mention of it being a first of some kind should be in there I think, as it is supported by more than one source. I'm looking at my last proposal as I'm not too sure about "the world". Wouldn't "It was the earliest constitutional document from the middle ages that included aspects of rule by consent" be a good idea (I've altered my earlier suggestion just a little, I know, but if you say 'first constitution ever' you might be back in the difficulties you apparently were in earlier on this talk page about Athenians, Plato and what have you and by calling it a "constitutional document" you also avoid any misunderstandings about what is or what is not a "constitution". Again there have been problems about that in earlier talks here as I can see. It's not my intention to write my proposal in chisel and stone so please let me know what you think. I'm not even totally against using the term democracy, but as I've said before, I do think the wording should be careful. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Using "It was the first constitution in the history of the world." is the easiest way to get rid of all possible problems since it's just how multiple WP:RSs use it.
 * 18:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I can't allow that comprimise, this guy Hebel is hell bent in removing the whole quote or modify it to belittle the author. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

CounterTime, By naming it "first constitution of democracy" earlier in the process, a "solution" was found for the problem that it couldn't be blankly called the first constitution ever, earlier on this talk page. As I remember that was the whole point of that excersise. To say "the world" without any restriction is a bit strong, because it would open numerous counter claims about Athens and Solon's constitution, that could also be described as somehow democratic and is even mentioned in one of the sources now given in the article. I could go on about how Rome had a constitution etc. The one they deliberated about on the Holy Mountain which also had elements of direct democracy by the way. The first constitution in the world since antiquity or even better The first constitution since antiquity would be options I could live with. Adding "in the world" might be deemed unencyclopedic by some, but let's see. I still would prefer It was the earliest constitutional document from the middle ages that included aspects of rule by consent It expresses a sentiment shared by all the sources mentioned I think. Sorry that I edited my thought and message a few times, but you're welcome to look at the back log and discuss that! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * CounterTime and Alexis Ivanov, It’s not all that difficult to find reliable sources that mention earlier constitutions and indeed ones that are explicitly associated with democracy. I have a few here and a few here and also here (note especially page 58 among these last ones). I’m not done with the Roman ones yet but this obviously means that restoring the original content is not an option. Specially regarding the exceptional nature of that sentence which would need exceptionally strong support. Also regarding the weak support that it had by a source that deals with matters outside the required field of expertise and of course the implicit and explicit contradiction of that source by the sources from actual historians that I just mentioned. I would again urge you to consider my most recent proposal(s). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >without any restriction is a bit strong

Who gave you the powers to decide it was strong or weak??? I want to understand how your brain operates in that matter. Also there is something you forgot, "World" was never mentioned in the sentence that you tried to omit. Educate yourself and re-read the sentence please. >The first constitution in the world since antiquity or even better The first constitution since antiquity would be options I could live with.

Quick note, we are not here to please or to serve you or to accommodate you. What do you mean you can live with!! > I still would prefer It was the earliest constitutional document from the middle ages that included aspects of rule by consent It

Now you are just playing games, what is the point of diminishing the facts we have presented to a mere joke. >I’m not done with the Roman ones yet but this obviously means that restoring the original content is not an option.

It's actually the ONLY option >Specially regarding the exceptional nature of that sentence which would need exceptionally strong support.

There was no exceptional nature that is the point, Countertime made towards you. Try and understand that and let it sink. >Also regarding the weak support

It is very much a STRONG support, from a reliable source with excellent authors. >I would again urge you to consider my most recent proposal(s)

I would urge you to stop disrupting this article and find a better place to play games at. Why waste everyone's time, with these antics Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree with my proposals that's fine. We don't have to change the text at all we can just as well leave it out. Perhaps User:CounterTime would like to weigh in, but as the matter stands versus reliable sources, restoring the text as it stood yesterday is no option. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean I don't agree, your proposals are out of this world. No sane human can agree with it, it's sole purpose is to diminish the Constitution of Medina and make sure my edit is removed from the article. I will restore the text because that is how I left the article, you disagree with it, you explain while retaining the article the way it is. With your tactic of undoing our work you are just playing games as if we agree with it, and we know that you love to remove it and you proposals are here in case you lose or disagree with. So enough with the fake proposals if your PRIMARY goal is to remove it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. And I have the sources to back that up. I am willing to make a proposal for other language but you don't seem interested. Let's see if others are. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't remove it, because you disagree with it when knowing there is a talk page discussion going on, your PRIORITY is to remove it and not change anything, so why you keep spreading misinformation here. I'm interested but it seems you are not interested you didn't reply to my reply towards, you are keen in ignoring and keep bringing up falsehood, so it makes sense the article go back to it's natural state until we reach an agreement. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alexis Ivanov, the article is now blocked and I should have thought of asking it to be blocked, but I didn't think of that. Your preferred sentence, about it being the first constitution, and about it being the first to involve democracy EVER, is clearly contradicted by multiple historians. Now, I'm not unwilling to reintroduce language about both those aspects of the Medina constitution into the article, but you just seem to be in denial of the facts in the books that are historical works and contradict an earlier source that isn't! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This was your goal all long and now you want to play the sympathy card as if you really want to help me when all you want is cause some form of disruption by introducing some form of language that has diminishing effect than the previous one, I never denied anything since all you did was throw some phrases like ""democracy in ancient greece" at google book and presented here, so how can you deny something that can't be denied or agreed with. Do you think I'm dumb or something when you play this game. I have already talked about the Athenian democracy it is your problem that you don't want to listen or reply to it or read about it when I wrote about it before in this same page, so what I can do to accommodate you??? Oh wait you accommodated yourself by deliberately undoing the natural state of the article and introducing admin block, let me give you a slow clap, but anyway good for you, I'm happy that you achieved your goal and you can wait when Countertime arrives he will help you out. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just whining. Get real! There are now three works, all by certified historians in direct contradiction of that sentence, and many more to be found. Of course it can't just stay as it was. And of course it should have been obvious to you that such sources would not be very difficult to find. As I said there are more even. All you have to do is open just about any book on Athenian democracy or the Constitution of Cleisthenes to find out that there have been previous constitutions regulating democratic rule. This was demonstrably not the first constitution ever and also not the first democratic constitution ever. And there are obviously many reliable sources by actual historians to provide you with that information. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone who disagrees with you must be whining where is the contradiction?? You threw phrases at google book that's it, no substance to your argument.

> And of course it should have been obvious to you that such sources would not be very difficult to find.

What sources am I suppose to look for, I can't read your mind, I already found my sources long before you came here to disrupt and cause havoc on my work.

>All you have to do is open just about any book on Athenian democracy or the Constitution of Cleisthenes to find out that there have been previous constitutions regulating democratic rule.

I never said there weren't any previous consitutiion regulating democracy.

> This was demonstrably not the first constitution ever I never claimed it was the first constitution ever, again more lies through your teeth. Can you for one moment tell the truth. There are tens to twenty constitutions before the constitution of Medina, please indicate to me where did I see it was the first constitution in the world????

>and also not the first democratic constitution ever

I also never said that, more lies

>And there are obviously many reliable sources by actual historians to provide you with that information

Please post them here and let's discuss it instead of throwing phrases at google books so editors can do your job while you stay at the shadows. I already posted my reliable source long before you came here Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've posted them here some while ago. If you never said that there weren't any previous consitutions regulating democracy, why do keep reintroducing language saying that it is? This isn't the first time the previous language was under dispute and as far as I can see it's been pretty clear why, all along. This can't be new for you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * > If you never said that there weren't any previous consitutions regulating democracy, why do keep reintroducing language saying that it is?

Where did I reintroduced such language? Please show me

>This isn't the first time the previous language was under dispute and as far as I can see it's been pretty clear why, all along.

It's very clear, because people like you who never brought forth any evidence and want to make sure the statement that I have provided to be removed, what can you do.

>This can't be new for you.

It's new for me. You can't compare yourself with previous editors who were much better and more respectful than you. At least they showed some common courtesy of not removing any hardwork that went into the article. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Where you reintroduced that language? You do remember last evening don't you? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I remember but help me, my dear son, my memory can be a but foggy what language did I introduced last evening. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ending the Dispute : A Proposition
So here's a proposition, I hope that we could all agree on, in light of the sheer-amount of sources that mention that "The Constitution of Medina was the first written constitution in the history of the world", which are, in addition to the source provided by ,

We will include the statement: "It was the first written constitution in the history of the world." As for making WP:OR to synthesize that there were earlier constitutions, we should note that we have two WP:RSs who respond to that, namely Muhammad Hamidullah's book and Phyllis Ghim-Lian Chew, who says in his mentioned book, p. 236, that: "The claim made by Professor M. Hamidullah that it was the first written constitution in the world is not without basis. Other legal writings on the conduct of ancient societies have been found, but none can be described as a constitution. For example, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, written on papyrus, discovered by an American missionary in Egypt in 1890 and published in 1891, was not a constitution."

Do you both agree on this proposal? 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Thanks for your reaction, but I have doubts about that sentence and I wouldn’t include it on the basis of works of Islamic hermeneutics or on the basis of Hamidullah's opinion in an article from 1941 as such (which I’ve read but is contradicted here for instance, in mentioning among others, the Rhetra). Hamidullah is talking about Aristotle's work that Aristotle probably used for a work on many other constitutions "Politica" and doesn’t mention the “Rhetra” by the way. We don’t take the word of theologians, sociologists or linguists, some of which may even be described as not dispassionate, in this matter, which is a matter of history, against the clear understanding by historians that mention an earlier written constitution. Although I would consider language mentioning Hammidullah’s opinion as such AND mentioning the “Rhetra” and opinions about that work and others in the body article. Which could be a promising way to go about this. I'll be looking at a way to do that and I'll be back here to explain what I come up with. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * CounterTime, Alexis Ivanov, Something like this (I can probably add some more quotes)...


 * "Muhammad Hamidullah has described it as the first written constitution in world history, classifying earlier constitutional documents from ancient Greece as not being real constitutions because they did not originate in the authority of a sovereign. Others however speak of earlier written constitutions in ancient Greek city states. ".


 * I take it as rather likely (given the construction of the different sentences) that most other quotes, likely even Khatab and Bouma's, originate in Hamidullah's work. I think that the sentence I proposed is not too long, balanced, fair to all and NPOV and more importantly will not lead to more challenges as the previous language did on more than one occasion, which is never a good sign. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Which works of "Islamic hermeneutics" are you talking about? All the other WP:RSs didn't necessarily reference Hamidullah. Look, I already accepted, despite WP:V being met, the removal of the description "constitution of democracy", I can't justify further WP-guidelines violations, especially when WP:RSs are too many, and when your only point is based on WP:OR.
 * If you ever wanted to reach consensus, then this is the last option, you already violated the WP:3RR.
 * 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Well basically work by scholars of religion rather than history (although some of those are sometimes also historians). On a serious note however, the previous language has been challenged numerous times on good grounds by three or four editors if I counted right. We will have to live with the fact that there are different opinions about matters like this and that WP:NPOV is crucial if we want to mention this matter in the body article. Also, quoting dissenting sources by qualified authors in the field is not WP:OR. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can reduce Hamidullah, a person with more than 250 academic publications, and who authored many works on history (without mentioning his works with historical manuscripts, such as in his Six Originaux des Lettres Diplomatiques du prophète de L'Islam, and Sahifat Haman), to merely a "schola[r] of religion rather than history", furthermore, how is "Emergent Lingua Francas and World Orders: The Politics and Place of English as a World Language" a work of "Islamic hermeneutics"? The concern with WP:OR is not about the authors themselves, but that other WP:RSs already mentioned them and showed how what you're trying to synthesize wasn't correct.
 * The problem is that from right the beginning, you didn't want any other opinion than yours, from right the beginning you categorically refused any use of the word (democracy), and now, after we were forcibly obligated to drop it (just so we can come to a common agreement), you want to drop the other parts, despite being sourced with many WP:RSs. Your concerns aren't with WP:NPOV policies, it seems, and no matter how many WP:RSs are brought to you, you always choose to ignore them.
 * Please don't ping me anymore.
 * Yours faithfully,
 * 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * "... more than 500 academic publications"? Seriously? What is your source for this claim? AstroLynx (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I havn't called Hamidullah a mere scholar of religion. I wouldn't have specially picked him as one of the people to quote here if I had that opinion. Some of the others that were mentioned seem to be about that particular field. I just conclude that other qualified scientists are of a different opinion as to what the first written constitution in world history is (or what the first "constitution of democracy" would be). We can't just pretend that this isn't an issue. Therefore we mention his opinion and others. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * On which note I should add, if you want to bring democracy, or something similar back into the language, we can do that. Citing Bouma and Khatab (separately from Hamidullah, who never said such a thing afaik) AND dissenting opinions by the historians mentioned earlier in this conversation, p 58 of this one and some other ones I found earlier. Just as long as we mention both opinions on this. That would make for a more unwieldy sentence, but I suppose it could be done.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * >likely even Khatab and Bouma's, originate in Hamidullah's work.

Do you gave any ounce of evidence to your words, all you did was lie about two authors., you are joking right, please I want to hear your reply on this matter but I expect you will tuck your tail and never answer? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "I take it as likely" means exactly what it says. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand it is normal for you to disrespect authors you disagree with and put them in a negative light, sometimes when people say likely they have some sort of an ounce of evidence that made them think that way, if you have zero evidence then that means you are talking nonsense, I love that you can admit to yourself that, it helps with your self-image Mr.Hebel. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I explained myself there clearly enough. That doesn't mean I can't be wrong but I do suspect that Hammidullah was read by most authors mentioned. He is clearly the first person (back in 1941) to make such a proposition way back before anyone else mentioned did. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >I think I explained myself there clearly enough.


 * No you didn't, you disrespect two authors by saying some nonsense, now you want to backtrack and prove you never talk nonsense, It seems you are following my orders very clearly and I love it


 * >That doesn't mean I can't be wrong


 * You didn't provide credible evidence, until then we are going to assume you are talking non-sense


 * >but I do suspect that Hammidullah was read by most authors mentioned. He is clearly the first person (back in 1941) to make such a proposition way back before anyone else mentioned did.


 * Funny thing is Khatab and Bouma don't agree with Hamidullah at all, so how can they originate from Hamidullah. It is better for you to not talk non-sense you are just embarrassing yourself at this moment.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't? Funny as I could have sworn they said the Medina Constitution was the first constitution of democracy, while Hamidullah expressly excludes the Greek one (which was certainly about democracy) as even being a constitution. Now... how does that add up? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they don't.


 * >Funny as I could have sworn they said the Medina Constitution was the first constitution of democracy


 * Khatab and Bouma say "The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule" make sure you re-read that slowly and let it sink inside your brain, make sure you are hydrated enough when you read it. I don't want you to lie again as you did before.


 * >while Hamidullah expressly excludes the Greek one (which was certainly about democracy) as even being a constitution.


 * I never mentioned Hamidullah nor is my argument based on him


 * >And by the way, listen very carefully here


 * oooooooh big boy right here


 * >Stop acting like everything I utter here has an intention towards the article or is even important to the question at large and start concentrating on a solution for this matter!


 * What do you think this argument is? You help blocked the article, you disrupted the article because of your constant undoing. So you have shown how low you can get so I don't expect that you will be loved or respect as a common Wikipedia editor think they deserve, your number one priority was to remove and your secondary priority is to change the language. Not only that you lied about many things, so an editor like you has negative intention towards the article based on the evidence we have here. The most important question is? What on earth is your problem.? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, conversation would be a lot easier if you wouldn't get so paranoid about everything I say here. Some of my remarks are not all that important versus the question at hand but I do have a right to clarify my thought to others without it immediately being regarded as a meaningful scorn against authors, you or anyone else for that matter. I'm also going through reading up about things and trying to find things to say about them as we go along. I've made my opinion about the quality of your sources versus the language that was in the article very clear, but that is all. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >Also, conversation would be a lot easier if you wouldn't get so paranoid about everything I say here.

When you lie you accuse people of paranoia that caught you lying.

>Some of my remarks are not all that important versus the question at hand

They are more important than the question at hand. How can we deal with the question when a user like you helped block this article???

>but I do have a right to clarify my thought to others without it immediately being regarded as a meaningful scorn against authors, you or anyone else for that matter.

Have you shown respect in the beginning you would have earned that approach but now is too little and too late.

>''I'm also going through reading up about things and trying to find things to say about them as we go along. Thank you.''

Good for you, educating yourself in these matters reduced the lies that you have conceived.

>I've made my opinion about the quality of your sources versus the language that was in the article very clear, but that is all.

Well you actually achieved your object of having it removed Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * After this I'm not going to respond any more of the distractions you spout to avoid having to say anything remotely constructive. It's just not a very useful tactic. If you have something constructive to say please do. Bye. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically I caught you in your lies and you don't want to respond and you want to accuse me of "unconstructive", HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yet another epic failure from Mr.Hebel. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, got here by accident. Summary of what I read above, a significant number of historians DO describe C of M as the first written constitution. That should be recorded as 'some' or 'many', but not as fact in Wiki-voice, partly because it is disputable (what is a constitution?) and also because it is disputed. Only one source appears to be using 'of democracy' (which is ungrammatical, the adjective is 'democratic'), apart from not being a generally used descriptor, 'democracy' is vague and potentially misleading. Medina did not have either the Athenian style democracy, nor the modern one both of which were based on the rights of individual citizens, rather than of religious groups and tribes. Would it not be more informative to say in what ways it allowed for consultation and the protection of citizens and groups? Otherwise the use is more anomalous than informative. BTW, 'Phyllis Ghim-Lian Chew' should learn to spell Magna Carta, she should also learn that no serious historian has viewed MC as the first English Bill of Rights, for centuries. Also the Peace of Westphalia has nothing to do with 'equal rights to every citizen in a plural society', she is comparing chalk and cheese. She writes mainly about Singapore and far-Eastern religion, with no relevant expertise on this topic. Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Democratic of what? I believe it is not ungrammatical. >Medina did not have either the Athenian style democracy, nor the modern one both of which were based on the rights of individual citizens, rather than of religious groups and tribes. It seems you are ising false dichtomy, because everyone knows Medina is not Athens nor was it situated during the Modern era when we are talking about Medina here. >''Would it not be more informative to say in what ways it allowed for consultation and the protection of citizens and groups? Otherwise the use is more anomalous than informative'' I'm still working on the improvememt on the article as a whole. >BTW, 'Phyllis Ghim-Lian Chew' should learn to spell Magna Carta It can be an error of copying rather than the author >she should also learn that no serious historian has viewed MC as the first English Bill of Rights, Yes since she is not a "serious historian" in your viewpoint? >Also the Peace of Westphalia has nothing to do with 'equal rights to every citizen in a plural society', she is comparing chalk and cheese. She never said it did, and she didn't compare the components of both Peace of Westphalia and Constitution of Medina Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC) That isn't a comparison at all. > a rather foolish one since nobody thinks The T of West had anything to do with 'equal rights', Neither does author thing that. >it's like saying "1000s of years before the Treaty of Versailles, Athenian women were allowed to wear make up" You are using false analogy >The two events are not-connected or comparable. They are connected in that they are legal documents connected to establishment of nation-state. >She ISN'T any kind of historian, she teaches English and the book quoted is about the spread of English, she has no relevant expertise AT ALL. I never said she was a historian or that she didn't teach English. I think she is pretty much relevant. >The other sources are much better and are credible IMO, don't waste time defending the wholly indefensible. I'm only defending one source which is the Khatab and Bouma, But I don;'t understand your hatred and vitriol toward this author. >ps please take my word for it that 'democratic' is the normal adjective, democratic government, democratic elections, democratic decisions etc, I never said it wasn't an adjective. >but more importantly, why is only one source describing the Con of Med as 'democratic'? It didn't. >Because it isn't in any generally accepted sense of the word. My issue isn't with the "accepted sense of the word" >It is a very significant historical document that guaranteed rights to groups and created peaceful conditions in the area, but the majority of sources do not describe it as 'democratic' as far as I can see Neither does the source that I was defending.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >Only one source appears to be using 'of democracy' (which is ungrammatical, the adjective is 'democratic')
 * Alexis Ivanov," While Western historians may cite the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 as the beginning of the modern nation-state era, one notes here that the less-known Medina Charter promulgated equal rights to every citizen in a plural society by giving them a say in governmental matters." That IS a comparison, a rather foolish one since nobody thinks The T of West had anything to do with 'equal rights', it's like saying "1000s of years before the Treaty of Versailles, Athenian women were allowed to wear make up". The two events are not-connected or comparable. She ISN'T any kind of historian, she teaches English and the book quoted is about the spread of English, she has no relevant expertise AT ALL. The other sources are much better and are credible IMO, don't waste time defending the wholly indefensible. Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC) … … ps please take my word for it that 'democratic' is the normal adjective, democratic government, democratic elections, democratic decisions etc, but more importantly, why is only one source describing the Con of Med as 'democratic'? Because it isn't in any generally accepted sense of the word. It is a very significant historical document that guaranteed rights to groups and created peaceful conditions in the area, but the majority of sources do not describe it as 'democratic' as far as I can see. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >That IS a comparison


 * Alexis Ivanov, if you stopped wasting acres of talk space shooting yourself in the foot, you would see that I am in favour of some neutrally phrased version of "world's first written constitution". Can you not see the nonsense of wishing to defend a bold claim about the history of the world, using someone who lacks any elementary qualification in history? Let alone political or constitutional history, let alone Islamic history, let alone ANY kind of history. Forget her, she isn't an historian. I don't 'hate her', I merely wish to point out she is completely, totally, irrevocably, irrelevant and you only weaken your case by feeble attempts at defending her. Other sources seem quite strong on that IMO. I suggest you guys take this to an RfC, because you (plural) don't appear to be even willing to try to find any common ground on this, even with someone like myself who partly agrees with you. Are you folks conducting a slanging match here or trying to write a balanced article? Pincrete (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC) … … ps I'm only defending one source which is the Khatab and Bouma, does that mean you acknowledge that there is only one source describing the C of M as democratic? If so, the only question is what weight - if any - to give to that source. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

>Can you not see the nonsense of wishing to defend a bold claim about the history of the world I don't see any bold claim, that is why I'm here, or else I wouldn't be. >using someone who lacks any elementary qualification in history? So what, it seems you are read to go the mile in her to discredit her >''Let alone political or constitutional history, let alone Islamic history, let alone ANY kind of history. Forget her, she isn't an historian. I don't 'hate her', I merely wish to point out she is completely, totally, irrevocably, irrelevant and you only weaken your case by feeble attempts at defending her.'' The beauty of all this is I can keep defending her, regardless of what you take of the strength or weakness of my case, I assume you already have a pre-concieved notion of the strength of my case, so you don't have to lie and pretend my case was strong in your viewpoint. >I suggest you guys take this to an RfC I'm taking this nowhere, I will resolve this issue right here in this talk page. RfC will achieve nothing but recruit people in each side, that is the route Hebel will be taking by posting to other people's talk page and asking them to support him in his corruption of this article. >''because you (plural) don't appear to be even willing to try to find any common ground on this, even with someone like myself who partly agrees with you. Are you folks conducting a slanging match here or trying to write a balanced article?'' I'm willing to try and find any compromise to speed this article up to date, the deal you guys put forth doesn't look good in my eyes and the proposals are weak and on top of that Hebel, the person that came here and removed my edits that I have put in the article long before he was here ruined the article for me, I have already reached a compromise before with another user before. There is no slanging match, just make sure you are on the right side of the argument here, or you can join with Hebel who achieved his cause long ago. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pincrete Watch your attitude son, yeah sure I believe you are here for neutrality, you are the knight we need to protect Wikipedia. Just make sure you take care yourself, and I will deal with my own space the way I want to.
 * Alexis Ivanov, I am not your son, and may be old enough to be your father for all you know. Going or not going to RfC is not a decision in your hands. How long you have sat on this article is irrelevant, it isn't yours. The balance of RS are not with either side wholly IMO. RfC is clearly the only answer to people who have not only ceased to talk civilly to each other, but also to an 'outsider' like myself. But, as I said previously, at present you seem determined to shoot yourself in the foot. So be it.Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No respect for the elders nowadays. I doubt you are older than me, I'm not here to discuss age, so I will take your words for it. >Going or not going to RfC is not a decision in your hands. Then why did you suggest me to take it to the RfC, if I have no ability to decide. Get thing straight next time, I don't care about RfC and I have told you my reasons. >How long you have sat on this article is irrelevant, it isn't yours. I never said I owned the article, big difference. It is very relevant when there are people who work on the article longer than others, maybe irrelevant for you. >RfC is clearly the only answer to people who have not only ceased to talk civilly to each other, but also to an 'outsider' like myself. How much civil do you want people to be with you, kiss your feet and hands? >''But, as I said previously, at present you seem determined to shoot yourself in the foot. So be it.'' Anyone against you must be shooting themselves in their foot. I mean who are you? What do you want with this article??? Do you know Constitution of Medina? Or did someone told you to come here and act tough ?
 * Pincrete >I am not your son

The source doesn't say democratic, it says "first Constitution of democracy". I don't where did you get the word "democratic" from. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >does that mean you acknowledge that there is only one source describing the C of M as democratic?
 * So I take that as a 'Yes', there is only one source in all the writing about the C of M, in all the books about constitutional history which says it was democratic or 'of democracy', if you prefer that construction which, frankly, sounds like a bad literal translation. Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Take it as anyway you want it. There is no books here dealing with any constitutional history as far as I'm aware of. I prefer the way the authors wrote it Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Pincrete, I can see where you're coming from and I mostly agree. My idea (see above) would be to mention both opinions on the question "was this the first written constitution ever" and perhaps also "was this the first constitution of democracy" or language of that sort. And indeed, none of that with Wiki voice. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Who gave you the power to decide what is Wiki voice??? You lied many times so I can't trust your intuition or your desire to fix this article when you have falsehood imprinted on you and now you think you can come here and decide what is wiki voice ???? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wiki-voice is what the vast majority of RS say on a subject, otherwise it is an attributed opinion, or it's fringe. I think the 'first written constitution' justifies being an attributed opinion. The personal attacks are not helping your case and make it harder for someone to read what is being discussed. Pincrete (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to understand when did Hebel gain the power to wield what is Wiki-voice or not?? There is no personal attacks from me, so make sure you don't accuse me of something I didn't partake in it. Alexis Ivanov (talk)
 * He doesn't have such power, but neither do you have the right to use Wiki-voice until you can show that more than some sources(in one case only one source) actually support the content. You don't think that saying someone 'lied' or 'you have falsehood imprinted on you' is a personal attack? Pincrete (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said or expressed the right to use Wiki-voice. What do you mean more than one source??? Countless of articles in Wikipedia people edited just have one SOURCE at the end of statements, the problem here is people coming here and not liking what they see in the article so they ask for 50 sources written by the authors of their choosing. Also do you think exposing someone for their lies as a personal attack? if someone edited a math article of 1+1=2 and said it equals to three, surely that person is lying and has "falsehood imprinted" on him. Exposing liars in Wikipedia editors conduct like Mr.Hebel is no personal attack. It's simply to correct their mistake and help them back on their foot after they slipped multiple times, we are not born angels, it's natural for some of our editors to lie. If you take it personally then why not stop lying. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - The sources are clear. It is well sourced that this was the first constitution in history and this should be mentioned. Anything else constitutes original research as there are no sources to justify its removal. Consensus is therefore clear that the inclusion of it being the first constitution is a statement which should be included. Xtremedood (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus when users like Hebel can come here and cause havoc by reverting all the edits without coming to the talk page first, so what does Consensus accomplish when he accomplished his goal long ago by removing the quotations that I have brought to the article long before he was here, your comment is very much welcoming Xtremedood Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Xtremedood, other sources that are as well or even better qualified say the exact oposite. How do we get from there to WP:OR? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you on about, the source I brought was already qualified, before you came here, we already had an established WP:OR Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to both Gerard von Hebel and Xtremedood. Xtremedood, I think it is clear that a significant number (some?) historians describe this as the first written constitution and that should be inserted, but I don't think that it is an almost universally accepted truth, which is what Wiki-voice would require. Hebel, this page isn't about constitutional history, so it isn't the place to prove it is or isn't, which is what you appeared above to be suggesting. People come here wanting to know what the Con of Med was, which is clearly a very significant document in history. If you two can't/won't agree, might I suggest an RfC, because I've limited interest in mediating here.

I don't see a significant number of historians describing this as the first written constitution. Hamidullah (who's language on the matter is repeated by all the others) is not an historian. The others are not historians either, except perhaps Amyn B Sajoo, who just mentions the opinion of others, without commenting on it himself. The historians I've read up on about this matter (and quoted on this talk page) are basically all coming out on the other side of this question. And how is this not an issue about constitutional law? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC) I'm in no corner, they are experts in field, in the field of political Islam. >What you are effectively saying is that you don't care about the authority or expertise or relevance of the sources, as long as your favourite claim is included. Where did I say that, excellent way to twist my words >I know however that you are only making your own position less and less tenable, and a compromise less likely. I'm willing to compromise as I have comprised multiple times in Wikipedia to reach an agreement with various editors in many articles. The inability to Hebel to face his criticism of his proposals doesn't mean I am not willing to compromise it means I'm not taking non-sense. Law of holes makes no sense, it is relative to what you believe. If you believe I'm wrong than by all means believe that I'm digging a hole. It is funny considering your lack of knowledge of Constitution of Medina. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you are the one making up issues and helped block this page, they don't have to be historians in order to write facts about the Constitution of Medina. All you are doing is narrowing the criteria of references that can be used in this article for your benefit, while you hide behind your phrases that you threw at Google books, excellent behavior if I have ever seen one. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And it is not allowed to bring dissenting qualified sources to an article since..... when exactly? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said you are not allowed, your nature as a editor is just intriguing. Make sure to re-read my comment one more time Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've said earlier, I would be satisfied if a number of opinions are mentioned with authors and quotes, but without wiki voicing and opinion either way. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The source that says that the CoM is the "first constitution of democracy" is contradicted by many sources, written by qualified historians, that state other constitutions are the first to include democracy. I've quoted them here on this talkpage. The same goes for the source(s) that say it's the first constitution ever, without mentioning democracy. That is the bottom line. The rest is just a lot of noise. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alexis Ivanov, you are painting yourself into a corner by saying: they don't have to be historians in order to write facts about the Constitution of Medina. WP is about verifiability from acknowledged experts relevant to the field. It isn't about your/my/Hebel's assessment of what is or is not a fact. What you are effectively saying is that you don't care about the authority or expertise or relevance of the sources, as long as your favourite claim is included. Which, seemingly, must be stated as a fact even when experts disagree. I have little knowledge of the Con of Med, or what experts think is the first (written?) constitution. I know however that you are only making your own position less and less tenable, and a compromise less likely. Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * >you are painting yourself into a corner by saying: they don't have to be historians in order to write facts about the Constitution of Medina. WP is about verifiability from acknowledged experts relevant to the field
 * Simple question, do you believe that the majority of historians describe Con of Med as the first written constitution? What you say above is experts … in the field of political Islam, believe this. That is a completely different proposition, which may or not be true. Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean complex structured trick question. No question from you is simple. When did narrowing down to articles in Wikipedia to a given field is a required formula of referencing???? There is no belief when the facts are already presented Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a perfectly simple yes/no question. So can I take it that your answer is No, the majority of historians don't describe Con of Med as the first written constitution? Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a silly question because I don't believe the Constitution of Medina is the first constitution myself. That is why it is not a simple question, a complex structured trick question from a person who wasn't here when I stated it and lacks knowledge of it. Just give it a rest, the article will open in 26 minutes Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Then, what is your position? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already said it 100 times, if you fail to understand it then you will fail to understand it for the 101th time, it's a lost cause. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hebel why do you want to destroy the article and the hardwork it went through so you can pet your ego when you have never established any proposal so I can compromise with? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you will find that I made at least three, maybe four proposals, which you craftily ignored or dismissed without any comment about the actual content, but rather with irrelevant distractions. You also ignored all sources provided by me to the contrary of 'your' sentence and Khatab & Bouma in exactly the same way. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Another administrator block thanks to our hero Hebel. *applause* Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Since User:Alexis Ivanov seems to be bent on restoring the sentence: “The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule”, an exceptional and extraordinary statement supported by only one source, not by a historian or constitutional law expert, and that is contradicted by many sources by qualified historians, I’m going to tag the article as POV and disputed contentwise. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And you are bent on removing my hardwork and my edits from the page, there is no exceptional or extraordinary statement. I also love how you narrow down the field of study so you can pick and choose as you always do once you realize nothing of the matter and remove whatever you deem necessary to remove for your benefit. I already showed you they have the credentials to post their facts on Wikipedia but you are hell bent on ignoring it because only two types of people are allowed to talk about the Constitution, what close-minded thinking this is. And no source contradicted what they have said., all you did till now was throw phrases at Google books and expect every user here who disagrees with you to read thousands of pages of books you have never to read it for you. Deceiving other Wikipedia editors as usual. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:DR
This takes the cake in disruptive editing. Take it to WP:DRN. --regentspark (comment) 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And what does that do, how was my edits disruptive ?? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahh. So I don't get to add tags I see. OK. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Watch your attitude when you speak to the Admin Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think I was talking to him or commenting on his text? And why are you commenting on a text of mine that I had removed and that YOU restored. Your modus operandum is insulting and rude! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you replied below to him, I don't have modus operandum, my modus operandi is to respect other users the way they respect me, you showed no respect therefore I am very neutral with you, there were no insults or rudeness involved. I realize you have thin skin, but don't expect mercy and forgiveness when you remove edits that another editor put forward without consulting them with the utmost respect instead of barging in and having outsiders to talk for you. Your modus operandi is clear, don't like a sentence REVERT IT UNTIL AN ADMINISTRATOR ARRIVES by capitalizing on the fact that the editor will put back his work again. I restored the edits because you removed them while I was replying, you have to remove the replies if you are gonna make other editors incoherent by removing the context of their reply a lousy tactic, might as well show respect and remove my replies, that is like commenting 1+1 and another editor saying 2 then removing 1+1 without removing the number 2, tell me how you are an angel and a good editor when you play these ugly games Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

So I restored them for you, at your wish, and you removed them again? Very consistent indeed....No flop at all. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC) You didn't restore them for me. You need to stop lying. Please.... You should do something about you communication skills. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 17:29 You removed your edits while at the same time I wasn't aware I was writing my comment when I clicked save Wikipedia will not allow it since new edits were done
 * 17:35 I restored them after 6 minutes from your edit so my replies don't go to waste, I just don't like your Jon Jones style of commenting, which is comment and delete knowing full well I have read them
 * 17:47 You removed the edits without removing my edits that were replies towards your edits
 * 18:00 I restored the full conversation.
 * 18:18 you got angry and removed your comments
 * 18:21 I REMOVED MY COMMENTS without touching yours You see the story suppose to end here, you removed your comments FOR THE THIRD TIME and I agreed to remove mine
 * 18:23 just two minutes you started playing a game with me and restored your comments
 * 18:30 I removed all comments in the conversation per your choice after asking and wanting THREE TIMES
 * 18:23 You brought them back
 * 18:30 I removed them and told you to stop flipflopping
 * 18:33 you brought them back
 * 18:35 I extend my common courtesy by removing the comments as you asked THREE TIMES before
 * 18:37 You start your Oscar performance that you care about me and restored the full conversation.
 * 18:38 I give you one last warning
 * 18:41 You brought them back, reverse psychology does work on you. Good for you Hebel. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny coming from someone who fliflops like a fish Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If I'm following the discussion above correctly, the question is whether the article should say that this constitution was the first constitution of democracy (whatever that means) or not. The statement appears to be sourced. This should be fairly easy to resolve at DRN where the source can be evaluated by independent editors so I'm foxed as to why you all don't just do that instead of talking in circles amongst yourselves. I can unprotect this article if you all agree to take this issue to DRN and to not add the claim until all dispute resolution procedures have been exhausted. Generally, if a source is contested, you should look for outside opinions before adding content that uses that source. I understand that the leaves the motivation to go to DRN on only one side so I need a commitment from all of you before I'll unprotect the article. --regentspark (comment) 21:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, regentspark. I'll come back to you on your proposal that seems very reasonable to me, later. I was perhaps naïve in thinking that confronting users with qualified dissenting sources would cause at least something fruitful, but it's apparently difficult. Basically I will agree to your proposal after I draw up a text for the WP:DRN people to look at. I feel no urgent need for the article to be unblocked forthwith however. I will let you and WP:DRN know what my thoughts on this are. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it is beautiful Hebel that you are admitting to your mistakes, you know confronting users will never make things more fruitful, as it goes against the calm nature of the human being by intentionally meeting other users with hostile or argumentative intent, per the definition of the word confronting. Maybe next time or during the Drn you will approach other editors in a calm and peaceful manner and hopefully things will work out for you in the near future Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You failed at flipflopping, it is amazing how hostile you are. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to this going to DRN? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't leave home to foreign areas of Wikipedia that I have no business or understanding of their conduct. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, well that's just great than isn't it? How do you suppose to move forward then? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one who needs moving forward, this article and you are part of my future project on Wikipedia as a contributing editor. Time is not with you Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see how this article interests you, but how am I a part of your future project on Wikipedia? What would be the point of that? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will find a cure for your illegal behavior here in Wikipedia and administered it personally. Don't worry we will work together as one team, one step at a time and you will get straightened in no time. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop making this WP:PERSONAL. This is an article talk page, so discuss content instead of treating the content as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've opened a DRN request here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * How many times should we lay still just so Hebel can wreck havoc on this article, choosing edit warring instead of contributing, choosing to pat upon his back instead of helping. You can't take things from thin air, just to please yourself. Every time I edit it must be an edit war but Hebel is the gallant knight right Iryna, even though my edit of 1 June was a mistake I added and I chose to remove it npw Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)