Talk:Umm Qirfa

Sourcing concerns
The narration on this page is very problematic from a Hadith narration analysis point of view. It is well established among Islamic scholars that Al-Tabari's book contained narratives of varying degrees of reliability, ranging from authentic to fabricated. Citing Al-Tabari unconditionally is not scholarly practice. Furthermore, there are issues with Ibn Ishaq's narrations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq#Reliability_of_his_hadith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.221.90 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021
I would like to revert the article to the following version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1037156903

User Ratnahastin keeps removing content that don't fit their agenda and actually replacing reliable sources with unreliable ones.

It would also be cool to prevent such vandalism from happening again. Exilvm (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You are clearly the same editor as the one whose IP edits caused the article to be protected. Favonian (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My changes included reliable sources.
 * You can clearly see that it was Ratnahastin who caused the article to be protected. Exilvm (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please look into my sources they're actually way more reliable. Exilvm (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. You're not going to continue an edit war through edit requests.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like did make their requested changes in this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, he is still using grossly unreliable sources such as Dar-us-salam, Ta-Ha publisher and removing academic sources published by OUP,SUNY,UWA, and Routledge. Aswell as making personal attacks on edit summaries and abusing warning templates on my talkpage .  Ratnahastin  tålk  10:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there is no consensus, I have taken the administrative action of reverting their edit. —C.Fred (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Ratna Has mention things which dont involve umme qirfa especially the second part his sources he gives one is true while sorce nine is clear lies  and has given false sources in the last paragraph these things are not even mentioned in the source like this whole part was added by ratna which he then gave a false sourcs that dont mention the things he has said he made  please look at the text his added and the sources he gave here


 * "was captured by Salama B. Al-Akwa,who then presented her beauty to the prophet.On this prophet remarked "What girl did you take, oh Salama?" Salama responded "A girl ,O messenger of God with whom i hope to ransom a woman of ours from Banu Farazara", after being asked the same question repeatedly, Salama quickly sensed that prophet wanted the girl for himself so he offered the girl to prophet, however prophet instead gifted the girl to Hazn b Abu Wahb [8]his maternal uncle, for "private use". This union bore them, Abdu'l-Rahmān b. Hazn.[9]" Source 9 here dont say this and he gives a page number of 287 which thats a clear lie as the book doesnt even have that amount of pages in total. The Edit by Exilvim has atleast been sourced and mentions how ibn ishaqs event are not seen as credible in classical islamic scholarship which ratna ignores especially the way she was killed. There is no need to mention anything besides umm qirfa and only her death and her the way she was killed and its authenticity should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 17:08, 15 Aug 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not following your claim about source 9. The link is literally to an image of page 287. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When I click on google libary the book doesnt have 287 pages if there is picture then nevermind. I will make another edit and combine the two and remove the last paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 17:08, 15 Aug 2021 (UTC)


 * Made a new edit that combines both edits of ratna and exil but removed the part of her relatives as its nor relevant here. Ratna has also Darul Salam is not credible when they are as they are the biggest islamic publication in the world they even have there own wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darussalam_Publishers. He even tried to dismiss taha publications we are also legitimate and not a service if self publish publications like ratna assumes.Template:Unsigned IP --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 18:38, 15 Aug 2021 (UTC)


 * I am concerned by the "we are also legitimate" comment. As I read that, it makes me think you may have a business connection to a publisher on this topic. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry english is not my first language I have no connection with that publication Template:Unsigned IP --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 22:59, 15 Aug 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpupptery won't help you with making a WP:POINT. Ratnahastin  tålk  04:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not exilvm and it looks like your looking for excuses now.Template:Unsigned IP --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 9:19, 23 Aug 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confused there is no consensus the only disputer here is ratna and his accusations of the source originally not being reliable has been answered as the new sources here are I have even combined what ratna and exil have wrote I removed one paragraph which ratna added about the fate of her tribesmen as it wasnt relevant to her after that he made a new accusation of me being exil which he then removed my edits which makes no sense.Template:Unsigned IP --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 00:19, 24 Aug 2021 (UTC)


 * Socking and babysitting by 92.40... aka Exilvm is getting disruptive. Here, he admits that having COI with the poor publications (namely "Taha publications") by saying "we are also legitimate and not a service if self publish". Given he hasn't addressed unreliability of the sources and only wants to repeat himself to whitewash this subject, I think the user is essentially WP:NOTHERE. TolWol56 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have proof I am exil you and ratna use the same argument ans same accusation are you him now? Can you show me which source uses taha publications and what are you grounds they are fake and unreliable? unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021
Why is this happening again? This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from  editing by doing this abd even  after lengthly talks in the talk page with a admin fred and ratna not even ratna could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?

My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consenus before its done?

I am not exil but if your to keep playing this game I can accuse you to be ratna why are you so eager to use his version and same accusation?

Which of the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.

Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?

https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/

Template:Unsigned IP --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.96 (talk) 06:09, 22 Sep 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021
This new user who went against the last stable version after a month of no new accusations and said it was unreliable or unsensible he gave no proof that the sources are unreliable he played the same trick ratna played previously and stop me from editing by having the wikipedia page protected and even after lengthy talks in the talk page with a admin c.fred and ratnahattin not even ratnahastin could prove these sources given in my version were unreliable so why has my edit been reverted and page protected so I can't revert it?

My version was stable for a month before this new user and vandal TolWol56 came he reverted to ratnahastins version which the second part ratna wrote wasnt even concerning her which had been addressed. Shouldnt his removal of my text be a consensus before its done?

Tolwol56 plays the same tactics as ratna and accuse me of another user exil who reverted his edits I am not exil but if he keeps playing this game I can accuse him to be ratna is he so eager to use his version and same accusation?

His new accusations is that the sources I used are from taha publications again ratna made this accusation but didnt explain which one.

Even if it did taha publication has been around for forty years I dont see how they are unreliable as a publishing site?

https://www.tahapublishers.com/about-us/

So can anyone deal with this here is the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Umm_Qirfa here is my edit whicvh was reverted after a month long period of no new accusation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umm_Qirfa&oldid=1044995801 92.40.187.136 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)



There was a consensus as ratna stopped this is a new person who reverted the established version. 92.40.187.136 (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are not for continuing content disputes through protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)