Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Beisan (634)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments in the detailed deletion rationale (that this duplicates an existing article and that a merger isn't worth it because of the unreliable sources) have not been substantially contested or rebutted.  Sandstein  08:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Beisan (634)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The 'Battle of Beisan' or rather 'Baysan' is the same as the Battle of Fahl. There are multiple, and often conflicting, accounts of the events of the Muslim conquest of the Levant, however the accountes related by main primary source, al-Tabari, are pretty clear:

There are a few other accounts, but these are generally briefer. The two accounts above make clear one thing: the battle which this article deals with is the one and the same as the Battle of Fahl: from the location, to the marshes, to the name of the Byzantine commander, his attempt to catch the Muslims by surprise, and the supposed 80,000 Byzantines killed (a completely unrealistic number typical of the accounts of the Muslim conquest).

To be clear, this is how a modern scholar, Fred Donner, reconstructs the events:

Furthermore, why deletion and not merging into Battle of Fahl? The present article relies heavily on non-WP:RS: its main source is a blog by Raghib as-Sirjani who is a urologist and amateur historian affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Given that he repeats verbatim and uncritically the primary sources, he is clearly not a credible source. The present article is a mess of information drawn from different traditions, and a merger with the Battle of Fahl article would only transfer this uncritical assemblage of content there. Constantine  ✍  08:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello there, by considering for while of why should be split into different article, it is because the mention of different battle than Fihl:

furthermore, Khalid Yahya Blankinship in History of Tabari vol 11 add:

so was Yohanan Friedmann in Vol 12 of History of Tabari who mention the separate battle either in page 170-173 and 183 about the mustering of Shurahbil forces to face Byzantine army outside Beisan. that is why im advocating the different article regarding the battle, since if we merge with Fahl, it is practically containing two different battles in one page.

regardless, if we want to resolve by merge and revamping the article, then i suggest the article name should also be changed too. perhaps Battle of Fahl-Baisan..Ahendra (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you realise that it is not Blankinship or Friedman who 'mention' anything, but that these two scholars are merely editors of parts of al-Tabari's history? Al-Tabari himself says clearly that these are different traditions narrated to him. It is precisely therefore that we rely on modern scholars, and not our own interpretation of primary sources, for such matters. And the modern scholars reconstruct events so that there is a single battle, which has different names: as al-Tabari's source notes, 'The Arabs named that campaign Fihl, Dhat al-Radaghah, and Baysan'. Constantine  ✍  14:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging some additional users with knowledge on the early Islamic period and/or early medieval military history for their input:, , , , . Constantine  ✍  16:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, judging from the sources presented by Cplakidas and a cursory search by myself, it is called the Battle of Fahl in modern academia. I am curious why a blog(which are not WP:RS) and the multitude of non-English sources are needed. I found sources for Fahl quite easily. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per the sources presented by Cplakidas. I think part of the confusion stems from the two articles (معركة فحل and معركة بيسان) that have been created in the ar.wiki, despite what the Arabic sources say about "معركة فحل بيسان". M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge -- If the nom is correct in saying that these are accounts of the same battle, we should have one article on it and the other article should become a redirect. Is this a case of a battle named in both Byzantine and Muslim sources?  if so, the article should seek to achieve a synthesis between the two.  One of the articles seems fairly sketchy about the details of the Byzantine forces, which points to that one recounting the affair only from the Muslim POV.  A proper article would be NPOV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed) entry on Fahl, which basically affirms Tabari, points to the same. Veering off the deletion nomination a bit, there was an occupation of Baysan by Shurahbil, which may not warrant an article of its own. If the two events are so inextricably linked, as Constantine demonstrates using primary sources (reports cited in Tabari) and one of the leading modern authorities on the subject of the conquests (Donner), then such an occupation/siege should be mentioned in the Battle of Fahl article. At the moment, that article, which discusses one of the main battles of the Syrian conquest, is in even worse condition than this article. Al Ameer (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.