Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza

Resolved:

Decision of the mediator that further discussion is unlikely to produce a result.

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

---

Hello Bless sins, Str1977 and Jedi Master MIK. I'm Shell Kinney (feel free to call me Shell) and I'll be mediating this case if you'll have me. You will want to watchlist this page to keep abreast of the discussions.

As always, mediation is voluntary. In this particular case, its also important to note that I am not currently a member of the Mediation Committee but have been asked to help out in this case since all committee members are unable to take on any new cases at this time. I do not believe I have any conflict of interest with this case and I have a background in religious studies (hobby, not professional), however if for any reason you feel I would be inappropriate as a mediator for this case, you may choose to decline and wait for a committee member to become available. Declining me as a mediator will not be held against you in any way.

Please note below whether or not you agree with me mediating this case by adding "I agree" or "I disagree". I look forward to working with you. Shell ^babelfish 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pending clarification of what precise issues are to be mediated (or in other words, with the caveat that the the above does not accurately portray the points of conflict), I accept Shell as mediator. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you as a mediator. Before, we proceed, can you briefly explain what your role will be to help us in settling this dispute. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree for you to be mediator. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To address Str1977's question, if there is a difference of opinion on what the actual problems are, it is likely that developing a list of issues to be mediated will be our first priority. Mediation works best if we can start out stating the issues neutrally, for instance, instead of saying "1. Santa Claus should not be used as a source" something like "1. Is Santa Claus a reliable source" (assuming that policy is the basis of the reasoning to prohibit his inclusion). I will look at the issues presented on the case page, develop a list and then we can all discuss if more need to be included or if there are additional nuances to the issues already listed.

Bless Sins, for an in depth view of my role and this process, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Mediation. In short, I am a neutral third-party who will help direct discussions in an effort to achieve a consensus between all parties. As far as my personal style goes, I like to structure things so that we discuss one issue at a time -- I believe its easier to keep on topic and come to a decision when you only have to focus on one thing. I will not take sides, I never use my admin bit during a mediation and anything you say here cannot be used against you later -- we want to have a free, open and civil discussion in order to achieve a resolution that everyone can agree on. I would be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the process or dispute resolution in general. 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shell, Thanks for accepting to mediate this. I have been at times involved in this dispute, so, if it is okay, I'd like to join in the mediation. Thanks, --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

1. Are the words massacre or execution neutral in this context?
2. Should the regret of Abu Lubaba be mentioned?
3. Should Tariq Ramadan, Abu Nimer, Majid Khadduri, Daniel C. Peterson and Serjeant be used as sources?
4. Should the parallel to the Torah be mentioned?
5. Which term should be used to describe the women taken from Banu Qurayza?
6. Is FPM an acceptable external link?
7. Can Montgomery Watt's works be used to describe the role of Banu Qurayza in defending Medina during the Battle of the trench?
8. Can Shibli Nomani be used to present Banu Qurayza's interactions with Huyayy ibn Akhtab during the battle?
9. Should the phrase "as was practice" also note where the practice was common?
10. Using WP:LEAD, how should the lead paragraph be written?

This is the list from the case page. Below please list whether any additional issues need to be discussed and note if any of the issues miss the point of the problem. Please do not explain your viewpoint on the issues yet, right now we just want to agree that we have a list of all the issues that need to be resolved. Shell ^babelfish 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is also some dispute over the appropriate way of writing an introduction for this article. --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Shell, if you don't mind I have added some wiki-links to your comment. --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I was wondering what FPM stood for. When you refer to working on the lead paragraph, what is it that you are unsure of -- problems with NPOV or tone or just difficulty with what should be in a lead? Shell ^babelfish 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem is with providing an NPOV summary of the article for the lead. But we can include it in the general form of "Writing the introduction". Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some additional article related issues:

• Can Montgomery Watt's works be used to describe the role of Banu Qurayza in defending Medina during the Battle of the trench?
• Can Shibli Nomani be used to present Banu Qurayza's interactions with Huyayy ibn Akhtab during the battle?
• Can Majid Khadduri be used as a source?

I have some concerns about the discussion as well:

• Is it uncivil to bring in to question a user's religious beliefs, after that user indicates that he/she doesn't want his religious beliefs to be a part of this discussion?
• On the talk page, may users post highly contentious and negative information about notable living persons?
• Is it uncivil to accuse a user of violating wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:CENSOR)?

Bless sins (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added those points to the content questions above.

To answer your concerns about discussion, since you didn't give diffs, I can't give you specific answers, however:

• In general, it is best to avoid discussing other editors and focus only on content. There are very rare exceptions where someone may politely point out that a particular editor's beliefs may be causing them difficulty sticking to NPOV. I would ask that those involved in this mediation stick to discussing the content issues to be worked out.
• Very rarely and only with sources. Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space is clear that the only reason for such material to be on a talk page is in the case of an editor discussing content to be included in an article (and they should be providing sources at that point).
• Not usually. Its possible to make those types of comments in an uncivil manner and continually making accusations without proof can sometimes be uncivil, but simply warning another person that they are violating policy is not uncivil. Again, since you didn't show a specific case, I can't advise you on the particular incident you're mentioning. Shell ^babelfish 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention any incidents on purpose. I'm not looking to embarrass any particular user, but to establish guidelines in general for this discussion. I think your answers are clear. Thank you. When can we begin discussing the actual issues?Bless sins (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just waiting to hear from Str1977 and Jedi Master MIK as to whether they agree we've listed all the issues that need to be mediated. Shell ^babelfish 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't know you were waiting for me. Ya, I think thats all the issues. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallo, sorry for taking so long. I think the points raised above are more or the less the issues in dispute, however I would rephrase them as such (I have taken the liberty of numbering the list above for reference):

1. Is the word "massacre" neutral, accurate and appropriate to use in reference to the whole event of the BQ's demise (my view) or should be word be removed completely from the article (BS view)?

2. Should the regret of Abu Lubaba be mentioned outside of place where it is directly relevant to the article? (I say no.) If so, is it enough to state that he regretted his words (my suggested but ignored compromise) or need we parrot the exact wording from the source?

3.a. Should Tariq Ramadan be used as a source? Or only with caution?

3.b. Should Abu Nimer be used as a source on historical events? Even in contradiction to existing sources? (I say no.)

3.c. Should Majid Khadduri as a source on historical events? Even in contradiction to existing sources? (I say no.)

3.d. Should Daniel C. Peterson be used as a source? (I see no dispute about this.)

4. Should the claim that the verdict agrees somehow with Deuteronomy be included? If so, how? (Longstanding consensus was not to include this.)

5. Should we use tangentially relevant special terms in Arabic in the plain text (as opposed to wikilinks)? (I say no.)

6. Should FrontPage Magazine be mentioned in the external links? (I say why not.)

6.a. On a related issue: should we selectively remove items from a "further reading" section that we don't like? (I say no.)

7. Are we obliged to follow William Montgomery Watt (that's his full name, the surname is simply Watt) even in vague and questionable wordings? (I say no. ) That Watt can be used as a source is not at all controversial, he is quoted at least half a dozen times.

8. Are we obliged to follow Shibli Nomani in all wordings? IMHO the issue is already settled aside from one about another source (Lings).

Basing myself on the latest revert, I see other issues as well:

9. Shall we include a view from Serjeant that is not decisive to a discussion?

10. Shall we include the BQ's socially inferior status, deduced from the lower blood money, as a fact right at the beginning of the passage, or shall we place it further down as a deduction from the fact that the blood money was lower?

11. Should describe something as "as was practice" without denoting where it was practice?

12. How shall we word the introduction?

Finally, this mediation must be limited to actual changes to the article and not focus on real or supposed incivilities - I know both parties have made mistakes on that field but highlighting only one party's fault would be, well, imbalanced. Also, discussing these doesn't get us anywhere. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Few more notes before I hope we could get started.

2. It should be noted that there was no visible change in the article at all by the "compromise", just a little note in the edit box of the article which was not otherwise viewable. Otherwise, thats not what I had a problem with.

5. Nah nah, we all did agreed a long time ago that using the original arabic would be a little too much and wikilinks would be better; the issue is stated correctly as we "ended" with conflict on how it should be translated or referred to in English. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The issues originally stated were stated quite neutrally. Str1977's edit on 22:10, 16 December 2007 shows how Str1977 views the situation, and should only be used as such. Secondly, I insist that WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP and other wiki policies be upheld both for article changes and for discussion. I don't think that this is an unreasonable demand, since these policies contain special provisions for discussion, meant to be used at times like these.Bless sins (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mik,

2. I never laid any blame at your door for the invisible compromise. I posted it invisibly because I didn't want to go ahead before anyone accepted it as a compromise. It always takes at least two for a compromise.

5. Indeed. We two seem to agree on this. But it seems that BS here wants to have the Arabic term appear.

BS,

No, my statement reflected my view (and that was my intention) but the original statements were not neutral at all but in some cases actually mispresented the dispute

You can insist all you want but I will not agree to any mediation on behaviour issues. If you think I did wrong you can report me any time you feel like. I want this mediation to be aimed at achieving a solution for the article text, not to pound anyone into submission. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is exactly what we do not want to do. Please limit your comments to other issues that need to be added to the list. Shell ^babelfish 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have added two of the issues that Str1997 brought up; I did not add number 10 since I'm not sure I understand what that's meant to say. Also, I have a bit of concern about "deduced from lower blood money" and just want to make sure that a source deduced this, because if this is something we came up with, its original research and shouldn't be used. Shell ^babelfish 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on this: one version says that "Hitherto, the Qurayza, who were less powerful than the Nadir, stood socially inferior with respect to Nadir." whereas another one has "The more powerful Nadir rigorously applied Lex talionis ... placing the Qurayza in a socially inferior position." [1] The remark about the social position is, I think, mentioned in a secondary source but IMHO it is a deduction from the fact of different blood money. Therefore I prefer the second version. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this mediation isn't to focus on behavior, its to resolve the editing impasse. Bless sins did not refer to any editor when asking questions about behavior and gave no indication of whether someone in this debate had behaved that way -- I don't believe the questions or answers were intended to bother you. However, that doesn't change the fact that everyone involved should remain civil during the mediation. We're much more likely to resolve the issues if we can calmly discuss the points.Shell ^babelfish 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Shell. The main point is that behaviour should not be an issue. I believe that once the article issues are fixed, behaviour will not be an issue for lack of opportunity. Just this note: you are not familiar with BS but I am hence I know that he referred to me. Not that I consider my behaviour, despite all faults, to be worse than his towards me. In any case, it should not be the issue here as no resolution is possible. And I will try to be as civil as possible. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of Massacre/Execution

Extended content

Are the words massacre or execution neutral in this context? Things that may be important for this discussion: Are we writing with WP:NPOV in mind? Do sources use these words or are we using these words to describe the incident? Does this give undue weight to a minority view or do many sources use this terminology? Please briefly state your opinion about the use of these words and your basis for that opinion. Just as a reminder, lets try to stick to the topic and not discuss each other whenever possible. Shell babelfish 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Comment by Aminz Here was my position: I think usage of the terms like "massacre" or "execution" does not add any real information to the article once we have mentioned that they were killed and the number that were killed. The common meanings of the term "massacre" and its connotations imply illegitimacy. One can find the meaning of the term here [2]: "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly" - The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles. It has the killing cruelly connotation. (Added at 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)) I provided the meaning of "massacre" from American Heritage dictionary above. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:"The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this."[3]--Be happy!! (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Please see the usage of the term "massacre" in the Bible translations showing that the term is not neutral: [4] (Added at 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC))- Since they are many instances of mass killing in the Bible, this shows, in my mind, the translator considers the term non-neutral. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions provides a guildline for usage of terms like "massacre" for the article titles but I think is applicable here too: "the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate". In part 3 it says: "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." This is further explain here: A generally accepted word on how to describe the event means there is consensus on the applicability of the word amongst scholars in the real world.[5] This is not the case here. This incident has no common name and depending on the author, the reliable sources use terms like execution, punishment and massacre. All of the terms like "execution", "punishment" and "massacre" imply legitimacy or illegitimacy. The neutral word to use is "killing" (21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)) The phrase "does not carry POV implications" in the policy, I believe, confirms that the term has "POV implication" - The term can be also "focus of heated debate" --Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC) A list of academic sources that mention execution can be found here [6]. In my view execution and massacre are both judgmental terms and both should be avoided and instead killing be used although this is not something everybody agrees with. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Comment by Str1977 Is the word "massacre" accurate? Yes, as a great mass of people were killed. Is it neutral? I think, in the end, yes because it accurately describes the even better than any other word. That massacres are not seen as positive things today by most people is a matter of judgment on their part. That doesn't make the term in itself POV. Certainly, the term does not imply illegitimacy. However, since there are concerns about the term being problematic, I have already reduced its usage to its minimum, three occurences: the title of the picture (which reflects that the event indeed has a common name), a quote, the title of a link and the headline for the section describing the massacre. In places were a verb was need I have replaced it with variations on kill. Yes, the term is used by academic sources to describe the event. And importantly, it is the only term that describes the whole thing. "Aftermath" really does not work and "Execution" ... "Execution", strictly speaking, begs the question of what is executed? The verdict is executed. Execution also implies that there was some sort of formal verdict resulting from a trial - which is not the case here (and punishment is worse on this account). Therefore I reject the term no matter how many sources use it. There is no Wiki-policy that requires us to follow a majority on this (and as stated, massacre is used as well). Keep in mind that because "massacre" apart from occurences that are quotes is included only once, it is only this one occasion (the section headline) that can be subject to the dispute. Bible translations are not relevant here. They are (good or bad) translations of existing texts), not encyclopedic articles newly written. Str1977 (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Comment by Bless sins Massacre is used in three instances. I dispute its use in all instances (in this case to be used in the lead) but two (its usage in the title of a painting, and its usage in an Ibn Ishaq quote). Massacre I assert that the term is non-neutral. To back up my claims, I refer to: Oxford dictionary ('...a brutal slaughter') American Heritage dictionary ('...cruelly') Merriam-Webster dictionary ('...atrocity or cruelty', 'a cruel or wanton murder') Chambers reference ('cruel and indiscriminate killing...') Dictionary at Encarta ('the vicious killing...') Collins English dictionary('savage killing...'){Added 04:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) Most users will find that the accusation of cruelty, brutality and viciousness is not neutral. Another problem with the word 'massacre' is that, like 'execution', it doesn't describe the entire event. The word 'massacre' ignores the fact that women and children were not killed. Execution This term is certainly accurate, and is widely in use. To back up this assertion, I have compiled a list of 19 academic and reliable sources. Str1977 disputes its neutrality, but has not substantiated his/her assertions with any sources. Nevertheless, for the sake of compromise, I have omitted the word entirely from the article. Bless sins (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Comments by Jedi Master MIK I'll try to be short and simple seeing as most of the points seem to have been stated: Massacre by definition is POV, I do not see why we have at least all been able to agree to that. Execution while still not necessarily encompassing the whole issue is much more NPOV and implies a lot less. Execution points to execution of decisions as well as the execution of the BQ men. Killing I have no problem with either though yes I do realize that it only gives part of the final results. Aftermath I have no problem with as it is general and NPOV as possible when giving the situation though yes I realize that it could only work for the title. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Thoughts on a compromise It looks like at least two of you agree that the word "massacre" should stay in the picture caption since the word there is part of the proper name of the painting. Can everyone agree that the word is acceptable there to describe the image? There's also a split about using the word "massacre" or "execution" elsewhere. One suggestion has been using variants of "kill". I also noticed in the lead that specific terms have been used, such as "beheading". Could another compromise be changing the heading "Siege and massacre" to something more specific, perhaps, "Siege and Judgment by Muhammad" which avoids the use of descriptive terms all together? What other creative compromises would you accept? Shell babelfish 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC) If the name of the painting includes "massacre" (it is originally a Persian miniature) then I have no problem with its addition.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Contrary to what BS claims, I have not disputed the neutrality of the term "execution" but more its accuracy. Execution of what? It is strictly speaking not accurate to speak of the execution of people - verdicts are executed. The one dimension where neutrality is infringed is the issue that if a judgement is executed, it presumes not only the guilt of those killed but also that there actually has been a trial. Of course, that argument doesn't go very far as of course not only judgements and verdicts can be executed but also orders for killing. But still, it is something that is executed, not someone. And finally: in our disputed passage, the section heading, "Siege and execution" would mean "Siege and how it was executed" and that is nonsense. "Judgement" is unacceptable - again because it assumes both the guilt of the BQ and the existence of a trial where there was none. (And BTW, nominally the decision came not from Muhammad, who only endorsed it.) The points raised by BS above do not hold water in my book: yes, massacres are often considered cruel etc. but that's not part of the denotation but a reflection of the current common opinion that such acts are cruel. We do not hide the facts just because they are considered bad nowadays. Exterminating the word "massacre" is hiding the fact. BS has also stated that massacre would be inaccurate because not all BQ were killed. Well, this argument defeats all variations on "kill" and "behead". It does not defeat massacre as the BQ in a substantial part (their men) were subject to a massacre - a massacre of the BQ does not mean that all tribe members were killed. Thus far I have seen no suitable term that could replace "massacre" in the section heading. All mentioned terms do not work as they are either inaccurate, POV or don't work for linguistic reasons (Siege and killing). And until that request for an equally suitable alternative is met, I cannot agree to any alternative. After all, I already bent over backwards and compromised on half a dozen occurences of "massacre" in the article. There remains only one occurence (outside of quotes) So, frankly, Shell, if you cannot find another word that does the trick, mediation should focus on other issues. Str1977 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Actually, its up to all of you to find something that "does the trick", I'm just here to help keep the discussion on track and make suggestions where I can. I'm not sure if you realize, but you're coming across as rather upset over the whole situation. I know that content problems can be very frustrating, but the more calm everyone can stay, the more likely we can work through these problems. Sure, once I come up with a fitting alternative, I will speak up. But those far my reflections have yielded nothing that could replace "massacre". Str1977 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Couple of comments about words people are considering. Massacre is specific to killing that is indiscriminate and cruel. [7] Execution can mean performing capital punishment [8] in addition to other meanings. Judgment requires someone making a decision, so if Muhammad only endorsed the idea, my phrase was completely incorrect. [9] Is there any other way we could describe the outcome of the siege? Can anyone come up with language that would include both the death of the men and the enslavement of the women and children? Shell babelfish 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Just a suggestion: Is it possible to split the "siege and massacre" section into two sections, one on "siege" and the other "aftermath"? --Be happy!! (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Shell you were incorrect when you said "judgment by Muhammad", since Muhammad didn't pronounce the judgment. There, was, however, a judgment, and it was pronounced by S'ad ibn Mu'adh. The prophet certainly approved of the judgment. How about "Siege and judgment"?Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Str1977: Both judgments/decisions and people were executed and so it does indeed encompass a greater amount of the event than massacre. Nothing in the definition of execution assume definite guilt. If it does anything of the like, it only assumes that those who performed the execution probably considered the executed as guilty which they did. Its not infringement of NPOV though. On the contrary, it would only imply that if you left it uncapitalized; the capitalization would show it to be a separate part of the incident. Again there is nothing in the definition of judgment that is assumptive. It is a decision of what is the proper coarse of action considered by the judge, i.e. the Muslims; only this and nothing more. I'd say 4-5 dictionaries describing massacre as is and 19+ sources using anything but massacre as proper denotation of the event is a little more than "current common opinion". Consider that with the fact that there are positive and negative views of the incident, it is definitely not "fact". Massacre hasn't defeated words like "Execution" and "Judgment" however; you may still say they are inefficient and POV as well but they are still not to the extent that the word "Massacre" is and so for now that's what is important, choosing the lesser of 2-3 evils. Aminz: Good suggestion, didn't think about that one before and I think it it would work well for the title part of the dispute at least. Unfortunately the word "Massacre" appears in the body paragraphs as well and so the dispute would still continue. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC) "If it does anything of the like, it only assumes that those who performed the execution probably considered the executed as guilty which they did." Completely agreed. Not all execution are just, and many are fiercely disputed. See "Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution" for examples. The only thing execution would imply is that S'ad and Muhammad both considered the Qurayza to be guilty - which is fact.Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Mik, "Judgement" is POV not only because it assumes the guilt of those killed, it assumes that there was a trial and deliberation of whether they were guilty. Nothing of the sort happened. There was deliberation between two parties - Muhammad and certain Aus members - about what to do with the BQ. Therefore BS' comment "Not all execution (sic!) are just, and many are fiercely disputed." may well be true but misses the point that all executions are the results of a verdict. We have no verdict here. Nothing in the definition of massacre assumes cruelty, regardless of whether the treatment of the BQ was cruel. As for "indiscriminate", the treatment definitely was just that as all men were killed regardless of their actions. And all women and children were enslaved, regardless of their actions. What does "*On the contrary, it would only imply that if you left it uncapitalized" mean? What are you talking about. I will not argue about trivialities like capitalization. Re Aminz, it doesn't matter whether we split the section or keep it as one - the wording "aftermath" is needlessly obscure. Contrary to Mik, the word massacre only appears (thanks to my unrewarded attempts at compromise) only in quotes and in the section header. Quotes cannot be changed so there remains only the section header. Str1977 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) It appears that all but one party agrees that the word "massacre" is not appropriate for use in the article, but everyone feels that using the word massacre in the picture description is acceptable, assuming that is the proper name for the painting. It looks like more than one editor feels that execution may be an acceptable alternative. Could everyone agree to this word as a solution? Shell babelfish 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC) No, we can't. Str1977 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Str1977 Only in the context of "Law" does the dictionary say that judicial proceedings are necessary for judgment to be proper, otherwise all other parts of the definition of the word judgment are fine. And again, nothing in the word implies guilt beyond what the judger thought according to his/her decision. If there is, I implore you to cite it. mas·sa·cre the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly. The mediator was even clear about it above that the word implies cruelty. Indiscriminate implies that there was no set standard and everything was random choice. However there was a standard: all men of fighting age in one group and women/children in the other; there is nothing in the definition of indiscriminate which says that choosing by actions makes it discriminate. You argued saying "execution" would imply execution of the siege. I said it would not do that if you captilize the word b/c then it would imply that it is talking about 2 separate issues of the event, the Siege and the Execution (of decisions and people) that followed. If you put it in quotes while in the article, that in itself implies the article is taking sides and would be equivilant to saying "so-called". Apparently there are people who believe it to be a massacre but its not everyone and so thats why it can't be used. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Mik, I cannot accept your claims about the meaning of the word massacre. capitalization is an often abused phenomenon in the English language. In our case, it certainly is not clear enough to denote what you are intending. "Siege and e/Execution" means "siege and how it is/was executed" I only put quotes in quotes. That is not taking sides. Str1977 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Str1977 Good I'm not asking you to; I'm asking you to accept the dictionaries' and mediator's "claims". Abused, maybe; efficient, definitely. Phenomenon o_O??? I also suggested/explained judgment and answered/rebutted your concerns on it. ??? Thats not much of a compromise then; in fact if the quotes aren't there in the original quoted statement, then its changing the original cited material which defeats the purpose of the quotes. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Well, that amounts to the same thing. You are loading stuff unto the word that is not actually part of its substance. Abused, sure. Efficient: no way. Silly: yes. Contradiction is not rebuttal. My objections stand. What are you talking about? We quote statements/titles and we have to quote them accurately. Are you saying the quotes are not accurate? Str1977 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC) "I cannot accept your claims about the meaning of the word massacre.". Then accept the claims made by six dictionaries that I provided. I honestly don't understand where the problem is. We have provided you with evidence from dictionaries that massacre implies cruelty (and a host of other POV meanings), yet you still don't accept this. Why? Why not "Siege and aftermath"? Aftermath would include judgment, killing, enslavement, and conversion.Bless sins (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC) I will not accept your claims which you make by (mis)using these dictionaries. Get it? Why do you ask this for the 50th time when you are quite aware that it is way too vague to be useful. The only alternative I can think of right now is to separate the massacre part and call it "demise of the BQ". Would you accept this? Str1977 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC) "Misuse"??? Please explain how. It's really difficult to misuse a dictionary. The entries are straightforward, and I've provided the link for you. I really want to know the basis for your allegation that I'm misusing the dictionary. If we have to separate the section why not call it "execution"? In anycase, it will be difficult to separate the execution. Are we going to put enslavement in another section? Before the execution part?Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC) BS, because you are alleging that things are only commonly associated with the term (because they often occur alongside with them and because our times considers massacres cruel) are the substance of the term. It doesn't make sense if you constantly refer to terms you know to be unacceptable to me. I could as well ask you again and again "why not accept massacre". If we use "demise" we do not need another section as the enslavement is part of this. BTW, "execution" does not properly cover the enslavement either, quite regardless of whether we split or not. Str1977 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Str1977 I specifically cited the words in the dictionary itself which show w/o a shadow of a doubt that cruelty is part of massacre. Are you going to call that common associations and allegations too? Demise? Hmmm, not bad. The tribe was effectively disintegrated in more ways than one and also demise IIRC implies finishing and coming to a close. BS, what do you think? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Regroup Lets try to focus on words that we can all agree on. Neither massacre or execution was acceptable to everyone, so lets go ahead and drop those for now. A new suggestion that came up was the idea of splitting the section in to two parts, suggested labels were Siege and Aftermath. Is this a possible solution? If not, what new words can we come up with that might resolve this issue? Shell babelfish 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Well Str1977 just came up with a new one: "demise". As far as I can tell, for now, it is a very reasonable replacement and should be considered. Now lets wait to see what the others think. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC) I'm very disappointed by the fact that 19 reliable sources aren't enough to substantiate a neutral word. Isn't wikipedia supposed to work by verifiability? Regarding other suggestions, demise essentially means death, so It's reasonable for it use as a replacement for execution or massacre.[10] However, we still need a term to describe the overall event, including the death, enslavement and conversion. I prefer 'aftermath', does anyone have a better term? But if we will replace a term for which there are 19 reliable sources, the term must be absolutely perfect.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Well, there is only a conflict because you reject utterly a word by reliable sources too, so don't try to paint this into black and white. What do you say about "demise"? It does not mean death but a process of great negative impact on someone. Aftermath is an empty word. It is also inaccurate and POV in a way, as it basically says that the massacre is of no great importance, only a postscriptum to more important events. Str1977 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Please see my comment below Str. --Be happy!! (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Bless sins: Well more generally speaking (according to dictionary.com) "demise" can mean "termination" like "termination of an empire". Everything which happened in the aftermath of the siege guaranteed the effective "death" and "termination" of Banu Qurayza tribe as one: its men (heads of tribe and families) were killed, the families as a community were separated up, and over time most if not all became Muslim or settled back into the Medinan and other Arabian community (yes, there were still Jews in Medina after all tribes were exiled. Str1977: If you're referring to authors who use the word in their writing, again there are plenty of authors however that don't use it. Therefore when theres an obvious disagreement in language, one must refer to dictionaries to find which side is most correct in its choice of words. So, in conclusion, the word of 19 dictionaries does indeed outweigh that of what some authors say. The word massacre however goes back again to the 2 arguments he's been posting over and over, that it not only talks about one part of the event only but also, according to 19 dictionaries on the English language and its usage, is POV. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Mik, regarding your first part (directed towards BS), I totally agree. but regarding the second part (in reply to me), I think you are mixing up your own stuff - you didn't quote 10 dictionaries but six. You are also wrong about "outweighing" as dictionaries are not competent on historical issues like this - they only define words, some better, some worse, but that's all they do - and the fact that historians use the M-word nonetheless cannot be held against either the M-word or these historians, regardless of which choice for a section header we take here. Str1977 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) I agree with Str that aftermath is better to be avoided since it implies that the mass killing is only a postscriptum to more important events. How does "Siege and Mass killing" sound?--Be happy!! (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC) The thing about "killing"/"massacre"/"execution" is that they tell half the story. Half the people (women and children) were not killed/massacred/executed but lived on. I think its not appropriate to ignore women and children, and only consider men.Bless sins (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC) How about "Siege and Mass killing of adult males" ? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC) This is unwieldy. We need something short. And of course it only tells half the story (though surely it is the more gruesome half). Str1977 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC) That's exactly my point. It is POV to magnify the "gruesome" details, as it paints the event as cruel.Bless sins (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) It would be funny if it weren't so disgusting. 600+ killed are not a "detail". This reply unfortunately makes clear where some people stand and why they want to replace the M-word by more sanitizing or vague words. Str1977 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Str1977 K then. 10? He said 19. Even with only 6 or 10, thats more than 3. We're talking about how its defined in the present b/c we are people in the present defining past events and the dictionaries give the present definition. And the repeated rebuttal to that argument is that there are also plenty of historians that apparently don't use the "M-word". Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC) And the "repeated rebuttal" is of no consequence as mere non-usage of the word doesn't in no way force us to not use, let alone reject it and eradicate it from all places. Str1977 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Jedi, I said we have 19 sources that support "execution". There are 6 sources that show "massacre" is POV. In either case, there are loads of sources supporting the change from "massacre" to "execution". But Str1977 is ignoring these sources.Bless sins (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Nonsense, BS. We have 19 "sources" that use "execution" (or variations on that stem like "executing"), we have other "sources" that use "massacre". We have six dictionaries provided by BS for the definition of massacre, though non of these dictate that "massacre" is POV. BS, if you claim there are "sources supporting the change", I can always say that there are "sources" supporting the opposite. Str1977 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Since we seem to have reached an impasse here, lets move on to some of the other issues up for discussion. Shell babelfish 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Not quite, we did finally get to a word that Str1977 and I think work. Bless sins didn't ever respond to the explanatory support I gave of the word after he gave his doubts so we never got to see his further thoughts on the issue. Otherwise, the only reason he and I were still debating with Str1977 was b/c I can't help sometimes letting something go unanswered >_>. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC) I think we can at least focus on other things until BS makes up his mind. Anyway, I cannot think of another alternative to the current text except the word I proposed. Str1977 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC) I don't think we should move to another issue without coming to some sort of conclusion. This does not mean that we keep discussing until we solve this. It only means we state the progress we've made by discussing this in a mediation. This progress can then be used as a starting point for when we next start the discussion on this. I propose we agree to the following points: Any word has to take into account the fates of the men, women and children. The definition of "massacre" (as found in dictionaries, see:[11][12]) commonly implies cruelty, brutality, viciousness, savagery, atrocity etc. Such implications are an opinion, not facts. "Demise" appears to be the most agreeable term, and should be used at least temporarily, while other issues are resolved. Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) No, I will accept the inclusion of "demise" only as a compromise which you have to accept BS as the permanent solution. The problem I had and have with you has always been your (IMHO) way of taking what I give for granted and then keep on pushing for more. It is your choice, take "demise" or leave "massacre". You can't have it both ways. Str1977 (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC) While his tone does not sound agreeable (hard to tell on the internet) he's got a point Bless sins. "Demise" includes more than execution, is not as POV or at all POV as massacre, and it does not downplay the end result of the siege. I say lets go with it; if you want to continue to argue points on other words that we never quite finished up above, you can pester Str1977 on his user talk page all you want (j/k ;-)). Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) So have I. I went to the trouble of providing 19 scholarly sources, yet for the sake of compromise, I have stopped insisting the use of "execution". I never said that "demise" was to be a temporary solution. But I said demise is to be at least a temporary solution. It can be a more permanent solution - I never objected to that. I have changed my proposal above, so that we use demise now. But the other components of the proposal I insist upon.Bless sins (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) BS, as for your "compromising" attitude, you never compromised in the least on the actual issues, which were not "execution" but "massacre", the word you wanted to eradicate. As for temporary solutions, I will have none of them. Either you accept "demise" as a permanent solution (which I would suggest) or you don't. So I am asking you now: Can we all agree on "Demise of the Banu Qurayza" as the permanent title of a section covering the massacre of the BQ? Str1977 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Good God yes, end this madness. And just an FYI, Bless sins did say he agrees to use demise. As for his proposal, I have no clue what he's referring but I assume its just the general body of arguments being mediated here. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, Mik, I am going out of my way and suppose that "demise" is now the definite (not temporary) consensus wording, agreeable to you, me and BS, even though he has not given the answer expected of him to settle this. I am doing this for two reasons: I do not want to drag this along and possibly pester BS with constant questioning about it. Another editor, outside of this mediation, is addressing the same issue. I do not want to keep him waiting articially. However, let's make one thing clear. If BS or anyone else (on the anti-massacre side) touches the new section header, I will conclude that demise isn't consensus after all. Otherwise, I will defend it on the article. Str1977 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Only supposing? I thought it is or it isn't. What is out of your way? Am I to assume you still consider massacre to be the best choice of words despites numerous people and sources objections to its use? Who do you consider to be part of the anti-massacre side beside me and Bless sins? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone agrees to using Demise in the heading; there's no need to make threats or conditions, you've achieved a consensus and can move on to other things. Please do not undo my closure of the section again, thanks. Shell ^babelfish 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No discussion?

This page seems to be deserted. It is most probably due to the Christmas break. I hope the discussions continue after New Years.Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Its very likely that everyone has some kind of holiday celebration or something similar that is keeping them busy. I've added some new comments in reference to the most recent discussion to give everyone something to look at when they come back from their break. Hope all of you have a wonderful holiday season. Shell ^babelfish 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was on wikibreak during Christmas and will resume activities in a short while. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

What about the issues that are part of this mediation, aside from "massacre vs. execution"? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a list under issues to be mediated. If we can finish up with the first point, I think everyone would be like to move on to something new. Shell ^babelfish 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So we have to solve the biggest problem first before we can also address easier issuses? What if we can't? Str1977 ^(talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If everyone involved in the mediation would like to move on to another issue for now, or open another one to discuss at the same time, I would have no problem with that. As for not being able to solve the problem, you guys seem to be headed in the right direction to achieve a resolution, but if you can't agree, then you may have to decide to go with the majority consensus or maybe just not be able to solve that issue at this time. Shell ^babelfish 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am with you hoping for the best but I am also expecting the worst. I don't intend to lay this on your doorstep but rather addressed all participants. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Regret of Abu Lubaba

Should the regret of Abu Lubaba be mentioned? Shell ^babelfish 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And if so, how? Should we merely mention that this was "an act that he would regret later" (my suggested but ignored compromise) or do we have to quote AL's exact words as lifted from Ibn Ishaq?

I personally would not include it at all as it has no bearing whatsoever on the BQ. However, I am willing to compromise as described above. After all, that would be only a subclause. But I am opposed to quotefarming. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the text in a long time. But this is what I remember and would suggest: "Immediately he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad." Its best to get Jedi Master's input on this before any serious discussion starts.Bless sins (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was your preferred version, which I reject. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your compromise Str1977 is I think I misunderstood it. You had it put invisibly in the article, hence I didn't see what compromise invisible text serves. However, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you put it invisibly till I confirmed to agree with it. If that was it, I think it would have been easier to just have put it in the article or at the very least mention it specifically in the discussion what your intention with putting it invisibly clearly was.

The format that BS puts it in looks good I think, a little neater version of your compromise so I'll agree with it if you will. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly that was the point of the invisible text. Sorry, if I didn't make that clearer.

However, I see no way of accepting the version BS proposes. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking of 'The account says that he later related that after giving his advice, "My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle"'? Str1977 doesn't like it since it's in quotes. Though Str1977 is not considering the fact that '"made a sign with his hand toward his throat, indicating that [their fate] would be slaughter"' to is in quotes.Bless sins (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't like it because it adds irrelevant stuff. If you really want to include AL's regret that's fine but we will not retell the entire story on it, with AL's feelings etc. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What you suggested above Bless sins sounds agreeable: "Immediately he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad." To Str1977, Bless sins has a point; right before this comment theres still "quote farming" regarding AL. So regarding that (and if you agree with the above stated alternative), I suggest something like (not final suggestion or anything, please add/subtract/change if unsuitable) this: "However, he then gestured to his throat which Ibn Ishaq states the meaning as indicating slaughter would result from the decision". Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well since I suggested the suggestion, obviously I agree with it. We need Str1977's input.Bless sins (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't accept a version that retains this quotefarming. I said that much. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

??? Uh I haven't said here I wanted to use any such version. In fact, I suggested an additional change which would make that resolution even more solid and credible. Here is what I like, make any reasonable changes and we'll go from that:

At the same time, he then gestured to his throat which Ibn Ishaq indicates meant that the decision would lead to slaughter. However, he then realized that he had betrayed Muhammad.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to that version except for the inclusion of the word "betrayed". It adds nothing new and does not cover that actual inclusion of his regret - which of course is what's under dispute here. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

According to what AL said, he only realized what he had done after he did it, thats why I have it stated. And I meant to include th regret but forgot so here it is again: However, he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad and immediately regretted it. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need the word "betray" in there? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read my post carefully before responding, not just part of it. Its there b/c AL only realized what it was he did after he did it and it explains particularly what he's regretting. If its not there, then you're right about it being unnecessarily there b/c then it just shows he's sad, nothing more, who cares? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If we can't come up with a good wording, the most agreeable solution will be to quote verbatim from the earliest sources. This, neither Jedi Master, nor Str1977 can deny as it is a definite text.Bless sins (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could everyone give a short explanation of why they believe that this should or should not be included in the article? Shell ^babelfish 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Bless sins: It is important that we provide all significant views to an event, as well as its implications. Certainly Abu Lubaba's views of what he had done can be considered a significant view. it also explains the issue further.Bless sins (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Str1977: AL's inner feelings are irrelevant to the BQ. We are not retelling all details but only those relevant to our article's topic. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jedi Master MIK: Every history book I've so far read which relates this incident has mentioned the entirety of the AL incident in the BQ incident, even if it was summarized as small as what I wrote above, hence the sources do find importance with his actions, thoughts, and feelings towards the incident. Also, suggesting putting AL's whole story his own page is pointless b/c one, he doesn't have a page and two, AFAIK this is the only incident he has shown great relevance and so we might as well scribble even a small summary regarding what he did and how he regarded his actions. I do have one other point I might want to bring which regards the usage of a Muslim source and view of the incident but I will wait and see if this is sufficient. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well everyone has given his/her reasons. What is Shell's opinion on this issue?Bless sins (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, do you disagree about this event's significance? It sounds as if both Bless sins and Jedi Master MIK believe that the event was significant to understanding some of the aspects of the outcome. Shell ^babelfish 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the event's significance but this detail's significance. Whether "all history books" mention it is beside the point ... they also give detailed accounts of the "Battle of the Trench". Why? Because it is important to the narrative of early Muslim history. But does are article relate the battle? No! But why as it is much more important than AL's feelings? Because it has no bearing on the BQ! And neither has AL's inner feelings.

And I am asking again: why do we need to employ the word "betray"? Str1977 ^(talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The battle of the trench was not all about BQ though. However, all parts which deal with the BQ in the battle of the trench in the article. AL AFAIK is pretty much entirely connected with the BQ incident; there isn't even a separate article on the guy, so there is nothing wrong with including his actions and thoughts regarding them.

Whats wrong with betray? It explains in particular why he regretted what he did. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"The battle of the trench was not all about BQ though." And neither are AL's feelings. His actions are but his feelings are not.

How does betray explain "why he regretted what he did"? (Not that this makes it on topic. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AL's feelings for BQ caused the betrayal and then his feelings for his religion caused regret over the same betrayal so yes they did have to do with BQ.

And his personal account given in Ibn Ishaq explains how betrayal explains why he was regretful when he, in words, states that after he did it, he only then realized what he had just done and thereafter he punished himself in regret of that realization. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, AL's feeling about the BQ are relevant as motivating an action concerning the BQ. His later feelings of betrayal have no such connection.

Could you answer my question and not merely quote Ibn Ishaq to me? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please actually read what I said after I "quoted" him. If you want to make it more simpler, try to think of another reason he was regretful. BTW, could you also respond to what I had to say about your analogy? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not find what you want to say. Could you please restate it so that I can understand it. And what analogy are you talking about? Str1977 ^(talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here's another possible way to look at things: AL made a decision significant to the outcome at BQ. This outcome was not a slap on the wrist, it involved killing all the men and enslaving the rest of the population. In other historical articles where serious outcomes were involved, say the atomic bomb series, we don't mention the regret of any of the people involved and stick to a describing the events as they happened. However, we do mention their relevant feelings and thoughts in their own articles, for instance, Robert Oppenheimer. If AL is unlikely to have been notable enough to receive his own article, it would make sense to have this information in the main article at this time.
• In regards to the use of the word betrayal -- had I not read some of the sources, I would not have understood how AL had betrayed Mohamed at all. It might be a good idea to think of a clearer way to word this information so that someone unfamiliar with the incident can understand why he immediately regretted his choice. Shell ^babelfish 12:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you're thinking of Sa'd b/c he made the final decision. Nevertheless, what you said sums up pretty well what I guess I was trying to say too.
• Well earlier on in the dispute there was a bit of dispute on what exactly was the betrayal. Therefore I left it just at it being betrayal b/c according to Str1977, its quite obvious what the betrayal was.
• BTW, this question is to Shell_Kinney, what do you say the betrayal is?

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Aminz:- Kind of late but my view is that we should simply quote from the primary source Ibn Ishaq regarding his later reaction. It is a very short detail and doesn't take much space and is of course relevant. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I initially rejected. We don't need a quote farm. We are the editors of the article and we must consider what the article wants to say, what is on topic etc. instead of mindlessly repeating source texts, especially if they are as verbose as this one. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But this is merely one sentence and arguably on topic. Quoting from Ibn Ishaq is good in the sense that it presents what the primary source says which may be in turn followed by the opinions of scholars. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To Str1977, 2 problems with your reasons:

1. The fact that you don't care that there's a quote right behind the suggested placement of the quote by AL but you do have a problem with this quote contradicts your reason for rejection.
2. Putting in one quote does not constitute quote farming; listing numerous quotes is.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's some questions to consider:

• Is there a way to state the regret more clearly? I'm assuming by saying "betrayed Mohamed" you mean that he shouldn't have told them to go against their agreement and oppose Mohamed -- but if that's what it means, that's what it should say. This wording invites the reader to guess what the betrayal was, as well as the extent of such a betrayal -- great for fiction, not so great for an encyclopedia.
• Would it make sense to simply state that he regretted the decision? I believe Str1977 mentioned this possibility earlier; its clear and concise. If more is needed, it would make sense to also explain why he regretted. Shell ^babelfish 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• No that wasn't the betrayal. The gesture that he made to his throat (signifying slaughter according to Ibn Ishaq translated by Guillaume) is what the betrayal was, he told them to agree to Muhammad making the decision however. What the
• I say put in betrayal b/c it is given as part of the original account so just saying he regretted it for some reason is kind of vague.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with quotes per se. I do have a problem with quotes that are either longish or verbose and relate stuff irrelevant to the article.

I did indeed, as Shell states, propose to simply state that AL regretted his action. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think regret is a strong enough word. According to Ibn Ishaq, "he went and tied himself to one of the pillars in the mosque, saying "I shall not leave this place until Allah pardons me for what I have done." Then he promised Allah, "I shall not come to Banu Qurayza ever again, nor shall I ever again be seen in a city in which I betrayed Allah and his Apostle"...

Furthermore, saying he regretted it is incomplete because it doesn't say that the reason was that he viewed it as a betrayal to God and Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If he so strongly regretted his actions that he took to chaining himself in a mosque, then perhaps the incident deserves more than just a single sentence to explain its depth. Its generally preferable to write your own prose as opposed to quoting the source directly unless there is some significant about the quote itself. Shell ^babelfish 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed deserve comprehesive treatment in WP, only in his own article and not in an article on another group in which he appears at a single event. However, strange that no article as of yet exists about this really important figure of early Islamic history. If all the energies devoted to including this detail into the BQ article into a Abu Lubaba article, this would have been solved.

"Regret" is perfectly accurate enough. As I said a millions times before, AL's psyche does not belong in the BQ article. We need not retell the entire verbose account present in the sources. This is an encyclopedia. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Str, when we were discussing the "aftermath" vs "massacre", you made the good observation that the term "aftermath" is not strong enough and I felt that you are right. Honestly, I feel regretting here is a weak explanation of AL's attitude nor does it explain the reasons for this regret. We are arguing here over just one short sentence, which does not seem to statistically make the article that longer or create great distractions. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, Aminz, though please note the difference: "aftermath" is basically meaningless (aside from placing it after something else) while "regret" does carry meaning - the equivalent would be something like "reaction".

However, if regret is not strong enough, I would have no objection against something like "strongly regretted" etc.

I also feel bad about arguing about a single setence, but alas, I did not chose this. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I asked this before, and I'll ask it again: why don't we simply use the words the sources provide us? Quote-farming is apparently no issue, since we have quite a long quote from Huyayy.Bless sins (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the convention on Wikipedia is to use quotes sparingly and generally only if there is something significant about the actual quote or we want to repeat someone's words verbatim. I don't see any reason in this case to quote directly from a source when prose to describe the situation would be easy to create ourselves. What about Str1977's point that the person deserves their own article, which can go in to more detail about their feelings? Shell ^babelfish 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this, which I've stated before, is that he doesn't seem to show enough importance to other parts of Early history of Islam so as to be notable enough for his own article. Therefore, whatever little stuff that can be said about him should be stated here b/c his importance seems to be linked greatly with this. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. From my knowledge, he doesn't appear anywhere else in history except for the Qurayza episode. Per WP:N#TEMP "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." This is the case with Abu Lubaba: his "short burst" of notability is from the Qurayza episode. I doubt we even know even the most basic information (his ancestry or his descendants etc).Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

BS, I would really appreciate it if you didn't repost the same stuff all over again. I'll certainly will not accept any "my feet had not moved" passages.

AL clearly deserves his own article. There have been obscurer figures both from Islamic history and elsewhere that have their own article.

Here we only include that what is relevant to the BQ, the rest belongs into his own article. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been obscurer figures both from Islamic history and elsewhere that have their own article. That doesn't necessarily make it right, though I wouldn't mind an example or two to better see your point on that. I still don't see whats wrong with saying betrayal though, it explains his regret but if you want to go into more detail on that so its clear, then make an article on the guy. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't necessarily make it right. However, I believe it is right nonetheless, at least since there is no way to classify him into a larger group. If we were talking about one of Muhammad's wives about which nothing much is known, we could classify her under "Muhammad's wives". In AL's case that doesn't work. I say we should create an article for him into which all this info about his conscience can be put. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is much known about all the wives however and they all have their own articles. AL as a person however is as important and notable enough for his own article as another guy mentioned with the BQ incident who, according to Ibn Ishaq, vanished off the face of the Earth after converting or something. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to check whether all the wives' articles contain more than mere "daughter of X, born then, died then, wife of Muhammad". Anyway, this is not about the proper examples but about the principle: this article cannot serve as a replacement for AL's own article. Either he is really that unimportant that he doesn't get his own article or he is important enough for. As far as this article is concerned, we do only include the things relevant to the BQ. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually out of the 13 (2 disputed) only 2 are somewhat like, at most 3. And again, his only relevance (as far as we know) is with BQ. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• To get back on topic here -- can all of you come up with a suggestion of how this particular portion should be written so we can try to come to an agreement? Shell ^babelfish 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read down below, you'll note that I mentioned I want to suggest 2 other author's as sources. The topic of AL is one of the places that I want to consider their inclusion b/c they IMHO can express why its significant to express AL in the BQ article. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of sources

Extended content

If Str1977 and Jedi Master agree, I would like to also discuss this issue at the same time. This is issue has also been discussed on the article's talk page as a result of an RfC that I filed. The issue was listed as: Should Tariq Ramadan, Abu Nimer, Majid Khadduri, Daniel C. Peterson and Serjeant be used as sources? Recently I posted an request for comment that dealt with two of the above sources: Abu Nimer and Majid Khadduri. So far two users have replied, and both said that it seems ok to use these sources. I'll list the sources here: Ramadan, Tariq, In the Footsteps of the Prophet. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 146 Tariq Ramadan was a lecturer in Religion and Philosophy at the University of Fribourg and the College de Saussure, Geneva, Switzerland; he is currently teaching at St Antony's College at the University of Oxford. Oxford University Press is a prestigious publishing house (if you need more details ask, but I assume you all agree with me on this). Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Khadduri was a professor at Indiana University, the University of Chicago, and at Johns Hopkins University. He founded the Middle East studies program at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[13] Johns Hopkins Press, the publisher of the book, is an academic university press. Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion 15 (1-2): 247 Mohammed Abu-Nimer is a professor at the American University's School of International Service. His research includes "Islam, nonviolence and peace", "Religion and peace", "Culture and peace and conflict resolution." "The Journal of Law and Religion is an interfaith, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed English language academic and professional journal devoted to issues that engage both theology and law."[14] Peterson, Daniel C. (2007), Muhammad: the prophet of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, p. 127 Daniel C. Peterson is professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. The book has been reviewed (and endorsed) by professor Khaleel Mohammed of San Diego University. Serjeant, R. B., "The "Sunnah Jami'ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the "Tahrim" of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called Constitution of Medina", in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 41 (1978), p. 1-42. Robert Bertram Serjeant (late) was a professor of Arabic and Director of Middle East Centre at the University of Cambridge. [15] The publisher, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, is considered "of the highest academic standard", and is published by the Cambridge University Press. [16][17] I justify the reliability of these sources on a few points: They are reliable since they have been written by university professors and scholars. Some are published by university presses. One is published by a peer-reviewed academic journal. One has been reviewed and endorsed by another professor. Bless sins (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I don't agree if you are misprepresenting the issue again, BS. The issue is not wether to include them but how and how far. Should authors be quoted beyond their field is the issue in the case of Abu Nimer. And should me recycle any wording from a man like Mr Ramadan who - to put it mildly - has a problematic record. I did not see any issue about Peterson or Serjeant so far. Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Alright if you think the authors aren't a problem, just "how far" they are used, bring each change in piece by piece and then we can deliberate on whether they are quoted "beyond their field" or not. And this time I'll be more involved in it too, I think I kind of missed the boat last time and from the looks of how it was going, no offense to either side but it looked like both of you were side tracking being too general/vague, at least IMHO. Regarding Ramadan, if you're referring to that time you and another user accused him of being anti-jew, I still have no clue how he was being discriminatory in anyway. As far as I could tell from whatever kept getting sourced from him on the talk and actual page, he gave no indication of animosity towards jews or judaism, just possible reason for action taken in the past by other people as every other author/historian does thats quoted in the BQ article. In fact, I could make the same or similar allegation(s) against such authors as Stillman and Rodinson from what I've read in their works. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC) The problem with Ramadan can be (and has been) corrected by simply not quoting him verbatim (anyway a bad habit of some people). We can include the gist of what he's saying without the anti-Jewish (in this case here) bent. As far as other writers are concerned, we would not quote a vitriolic outburst by them, would we? Now, the main problem I see is that of an author being quoted beyond his field: Abu Nimer is no historian but expert in dispute resolution models. He quotes the BQ meditian and depicts it like the BQ had agreed to mediation with Muhammad. However, the facts are according to all hitherto presented sources that the other party was the Banu Aus and the BQ mere objects of the mediation. If Abu Nimer quotes some hitherto unknown historian, we can as well quote that historian (but thus far BS has refused to give information about that) but he might as well just made a mistake. That doesn't impact his research as he only covers models, but it impacts our article. BS of course denies the issue and above omits the field these scholars were professor of or what qualifications they have, preferring to include the less important information of where they are/were professor. Str1977 (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I don't quite understand what you mean by that; does he write honorifics towards the Muslims so it would be violating NPOV to quote verbatim? Also, I still don't see how he was being anti-Jew (mind you, I didn't read what he said verbatim in his writing so maybe thats where you say he's anti-Jew). Whose quoting vitriolic outbursts by authors? I didn't see any when I looked through the changes Bless Sins wanted. You know I saw the same thing several other authors too, one of whom I think was Martin Lings. And technically speaking, by surrendering to Muhammad they agreed to mediation by him. However, the Aus according to all sources given intervened and said they wanted to be the decider since they were previously allies to BQ. Oh really? Look at it again, the bolded parts in particular. Pardon me for fiddling with your post Bless Sins, I'm not changing your post, just highlighting the finer points which Str1977 missed. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I find Str1977's position to be unclear. Str1977 can you please put a 'yes' or 'no' beside each of the following sources. A 'yes' indicates that you think it meets WP:SOURCES and WP:RS to be used specifically in the article Banu Qurayza. Abu Nimer._____ Journal of law and religion.____ Tariq Ramadan.____ Majid Khadduri.____ Serjeant, R. B.____ Daniel C. Peterson.____ Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC) No, I will not. You are trying my patience, go and read what I wrote. The issue is not Yes or No to any of these source - the issue is when and how. Str1977 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC) You question each sources' scholarship and area of expertise, even though Bless Sins clearly stated each his own, and then you expect him to think this is not a question of yes or no? Now please, respond to my response to you so we can continue this mediation. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Shell can you jump in here? Is asking Str1977 to simply answer the above question too much to ask?Bless sins (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Bless sins, please, he has answered the question, it is not that some are unreliable or not, and I realize that there seems to be contradiction in what he says later about that but let him give a response to it first. Oh and yes, Shell's help in this matter would be much appreciated. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC) If he has answered the question, can you tell me if Str1977 thinks these sources are reliable on the topic of Banu Qurayza or not?Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Well he says above that he does not have a problem with the sources themselves, just how, where, and when they're used. But as far as I can tell there isn't anything they should have a problem telling on the BQ page. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC) For the sake of Mik, let me quickly comment: Ramadan, Tariq Is a lecturer in religion, not history. His comments may be included with care as opinion, NOT as historical research. And we have to tread with care because of his language. Khadduri, Majid Seems all right. However, we still lack what the area of expertise is missing (much more relevant information than telling me about Oxford University). Mohammed Abu-Nimer His expertise is not history hence he is not suitable for referencing historical facts, especially if they are contradicted by other sources. Peterson, Daniel C. There's nothing wrong with him, at least not in general. Serjeant, R. B. Or with him. Re Khadduri and Abu-Nimer there is the question; what happens if some sources (one of the clearly not qualified) claim something in contradiction to the other sources? Str1977 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Ramadan, Tariq When studying religion there is also usually a good amount of history of that religion involved as well, particularly when the history of the religion in question has a great amount of implication on said religion. Khadduri, Majid Obviously if he founded a Middle East Studies program at a prestigious university, then it stands to reason his expertise lies a great deal in the same program which again most likely involves a great deal of history. Mohammed Abu-Nimer Again he is studying religion, which in this case the particular religion is Islam, where again there is much history to be discussed as well. As for the allegation that some above authors contradict other authors, I don't know the whole situation with them on every disputed change but I'll make a few conjectures. BTW, I'll assume the sources being contradicted are the western authors (Watt, Stillman, Rodinson, etc.) cited on the BQ page. He uses more or other historical sources besides the ones utilized by other authors. Other authors might be misreading the sources (And I have seen this for sure). He might be misreading his. Assuming he has a good knowledge of Arabic, he reads the original sources in their original form which are free from the whim of a translator's POV's. This one's pretty cynical but I don't doubt it happens to at least a small degree which can make a big difference in translation. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC) So as far as I see, there is a disagreement on Tariq Ramadan and Abu-Nimer. I beleive Ramadan is reliable, but Str1977 rejects his reliability for "historical research". Regarding Abu-Nimer I put him on WP:RSN. Only one person commented, but this person agreed that Abu Nimer was a reliable source. Regarding contradiction: if there appears to be a contradiction in a fact, then we note it, attributing both sources. If there is not contradiction in a fact, then we need not attribute the source and state it as fact. Whether or not, there's a contradiction in opinion, all opinions should be attributed.Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I just realized one other possibility Bless Sins just reminded me of regarding contradiction among authors. History is not like science where everything something and nothing else; there is oft times a great deal of conflict regarding what exactly happened at some time, particularly with this era. Therefore, when there's contradiction among authors it does not necessairly mean one author is wrong or unreliable but again they might have employed different sources or material that the other author chose for whatever reason not to employ, be it opinion or more research into the sources giving the information. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Exactly -- you're hinting on the point of the WP:NPOV guideline. Wikipedia doesn't judge who was correct, all views are presented. There are cases for instance: in history if the person contradicts most historians and is a layman themselves, in science if a person or group promotes a theory that mainstream science disputes -- in those types of cases, we don't necessarily include the minor viewpoint. Shell babelfish 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Problem is though I have only now gotten involved with this particular dispute and I don't even know which topics in particular Abu Nimer allegedly conflicts with other authors on and so I suggested to Str1977 to bring each topic in one by one if the authors are not a problem themselves for inclusion. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Aminz: My view is that all of the above sources are reliable for all the information they provide on Qurayza (one may disagree but I think the current generally practiced standards in wikipedia allows these sources; many articles indeed use less reliable sources). Their content represents the perspective of the author. I don't know what is quoted from them but none of them can be anti-Jewish more than an arbitrary reliable author can be anti-muslim or anti-christian, otherwise during the peer-review process this would have been corrected. So, with proper attribution one should be able to use all of them. BUT, does that mean that we should keep to the original wording of these texts: No I would say, we should sometimes tone it down in terms of its language while keeping their main content. For example if the author says "fictional", we can instead write "didn't happen". Sometime some descriptions do not add anything informative and we can get rid of them as well. But this should be discussed after looking at the case.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC) We cannot simply infer that because some studies a certain religion he is also a qualified historian. One of course may specialize in that direction but that is NOT NECESSARILY the case. Abu Nimer for instance specializes in models of conflict resolution. The sources contradicted are not only "western authors" (though I am not sure why that would be relevant at all) but all the sources including historical research and the primary sources, who all speak of an arbitration between Muhammad and the Banu Aus, making the BQ the mere objects. After all, they had already surrendered unconditionally. Abu Nimer, who makes the claim, does not give any sources or references but just relates it like it were common knowledge. Well, it is not. It was probably just confusing two tribes. To his field it doesn't make any difference. If an actual historian made such a statement I would agree with the let's note the contradiction approach. As for Mr Ramadan, the problem with him is that he has very strong opinions and expreses them in a very strong language, bordering IMHO on the inflammatory. The question is how to include his opinions (and he is only used for opinion and I don't have a problem with that as long as the wording issue is solved.) Aminz writes in that direction but he has too much faith in the peer review process eliminating such language. That simply doesn't happen all the time (and of course we don't know whether or how this particular book was reviewed). Str1977 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC) With the close study of Islam, history is involved a great amount, particularly b/c its history is derived from the same accounts that are used as guides towards practicing Islam. So in the matter of Islamic history, yes he can be considered a qualified historian of Islamic history. You didn't read any of the possibilities I gave you for the possible conflict of information between sources and Abu Nimer did you? Go back and see those first, then tell me what you think b/c you've already told me this and I've already responded to it. So you've read his book to confirm this? By putting in your own opinions on authors like this, you yourself are contributing to the "muddied" waters. So he does speak in honorifics and what not? You know beneath all that there is the actual information of relevance that his book was written for, we just need to read it an unbiased fashion and discern it. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Would someone please quote what these guys say. Thanks in advance, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Here are the links: Khadduri and Buchanan, Moore and Hashmi. Abu Nimer states, in the Journal of Law and Religion, "in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them."Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Str1977 can you present atleast one reliable source that says that there was no arbitration between Banu Qurayza and Muhammad?Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Well, all three sources you mentioned specify that the surrender of Qurayza was not unconditional but rather the tribe agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing. Majid Khadduri goes further and says that "On the basis of this precedent, al-Shaybani advises the imam that the Muslims may agree to submit to a third party a dispute on matters connected with the termination of fighting or of a particular battle. As in the case of..." It appears that these three independent sources agree that the agreement between Muhammad and Qurayza even became a precedent for some later Muslim jurists. This leads me to think that the above three source are giving credence to certain Islamic traditions that other scholars do not. Thus, it is a valid point to include that according to some scholars the surrender was ... and it might be good to mention in the footnotes that it became a precedent for later jurists. Having said these, I think Str was acting in good faith because he hadn't seen those Islamic traditions that these three scholars are using. According to Khaduri, one can find those traditions that say that Qurayza didn't surrender unconditionally in a book written by "al-Shaybani". Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC) "all three sources you mentioned specify that the surrender of Qurayza was not unconditional but rather the tribe agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing." Aha! Interesting that thus far it has always been claimed that they surrendered unconditionally! Which happens to be wrong according to this. My view was all the time restricted towards the appointment of Sad which was brought about as Muhammad's respose to the protests of the Banu Aus. If the surrender was not unconditional, we should work this into the article. Can you quote the entire Khadduri passage, Aminz? Str1977 (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC) <sigh>Please read my comment above. I've posted the link to the entire Khadduri book above.Bless sins (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC) No, I agree that this is strange. I had never heard of it before and I think Str did have a point and was acting in good faith. Yes, as Bless sins pointed out the link is given above. Please scroll down and see the next page as well and the reference given for the primary source in question. Cheers,--Be happy!! (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC) All right, let's have another look at this: Looking into Khaduri, I do not see the supposed claim that the BQ surrendered conditionally. Neither is it in Abu Nimer. In fact Khaduri seems just as much confusing the BQ with the BA as Abu Nimer is, as the passage speak of an "arbitrator chosen by them". Our more reliable sources however speak of Muhammad chosing the arbitrator from among the chiefs of the BA. I grant you that the complaining BA chiefs probably had no alternative than to accept Sad (who afterall fit the demands they made) and maybe even had no reason to reject him and hence might have made a move of acceptance. However, nowhere are the BQ described as being involved with this choice. Which leaves us the "States, Nations, and Borders" book. Unfortunately, things get even worse here: the book says that the BQ agreed to "surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing." This is completely at odds with all other accounts, as a) nowhere is an involvement of the BQ in the choice reported, b) nowhere are conditions reported, c) it makes Muhammad's quarrell with the BA pointless - unless Muhammad was going back on his word to the BQ and was forced by the BA to honour it, which however I do not think probable for reasons of diplomacy (it wouldn't be expedient to break his word) and personality (breaking an explicit promise doesn't sound like Muhammad). The book gives a footnote 88 as reference and we will have to look that up. Unfortunately the footnote is not included in the link given, which makes the whole thing pretty worthless. Khaduri however is referenced to a "Ibn Hashim, Kitab ..., ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 18.., vol. II, p. 688-689." Can anyone provide us with the text of that source? Str1977 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I am afraid I can not accept your thesis that Khaduri is confusing BQ with BA. Please see next page where it says "al-Shaybani advises the imam that the Muslims may agree to submit to a third party a dispute on matters connected with the termination of fighting or of a particular battle." Furthermore, three independent authors would not make the same mistake. And the job of the reviewer is to catch those mistakes. Surely some of the sources are more reliable than others but we are not scholars who are doing the research.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I must insist on my thesis as this is what seems to me to be case. However, for a real understanding we need to see what the sources referenced are saying. I would indeed prefer a source these authors base their claim on. And sorry, we cannot help but discuss these things if we want a good and reliable article. Str1977 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC) (PS 8still): please please do NOT remove the gap between this and the next comment.) Str1977 (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Of course the matter would be clearer if one can check the source Khaduri is referring to (i.e. Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Shaybani's al-Siyar al-Kabir with Sarakhsl's Commentary). Shaybani was born 100 years after the death of Muhammad, so it should be an early source; or at least what is attributed to him has the claim of being early. Regarding the thesis that these guys are giving credence to some existing traditio , one could say that an scholar's assertion is correct unless proved otherwise; it is unlikely that three author make the same mistake independently; the type precedent it became. I think your thesis may be true but it still needs much more evidence to be able to considered as an argument for rejecting the other thesis and effectively removing its relevant info from wikipedia article. But I am completely open about the possibility of a mistake here if one can make a good case for it; I did some google search on this primary source but couldn't find any english translation of it.--Be happy!! (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Aminz, here's another medieval source: Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya (Ibn Kathir), page 166 of the 2000 version as translated from Arabic to English by Trevor Le Gassick([18]). Even according to this source "the Banu Qurayza agreed to submit to the authority of Sa'ad." We now have 4 sources (3 scholarly and one medieval). What are the chances that all of them made a mistake?Bless sins (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Shell and Aminz, let me make my case clear: I believe that Tariq Ramadan's book is reliable because it is published by the Oxford University Press. I believe Abu-Nimer’s article is reliable because it is published by the Journal of Law and Religion. I base my case on the following excerpt from WP:V “’’In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses;’’” Wikipedia also says that “The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.” Thus, the fact that a publisher is reliable affects reliability just as much if an author is reliable.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Do you think my claims have merit?Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC) These points should not be overstressed as you are (IMHO) doing. Your principles are correct but we have to decide on how to apply them here. Str1977 (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC) We apply them as we apply reliable sources. I.e. we accept what the sources say as fact, unless they are i) contradicted by a reliable source, or ii) giving an opinion.Bless sins (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC) That's a major mistake of yours: we do not accept what the "sources" say as fact, we accept it as the source's view. And of course, in these cases there is contradiction. Str1977 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC) It looks like every is agreeing here that these can be reliable sources. What is still up for discussion is how to use those sources and what weight they should be given. Are there any particular statements in the article which are problematic, or contradict other sources that need to be looked at? Shell babelfish 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Reliable in the absence of contradiction. But we do have contradiction in one issue (Abu Nimer, Khaduri). In the other case (Ramadan) it is a matter of how to include opinions. Str1977 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC) If that is the case, then it would be best to discuss those specific issues instead of the broad issue of all sources, since that doesn't seem to be an actual issue. Shell babelfish 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) No this is not the case. Str1977 has yet to provide atleast one source which contradicts the three sources I have provided. From what I've read, not a single source says that "there was no arbitration between Muhammad and Qurayza". Not even one.Bless sins (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC) "we do not accept what the "sources" say as fact, we accept it as the source's view" Then I guess that the Qurayza were put to death shouldn't be treated as "fact" - esp. since we do have sources contradicting their deaths?Bless sins (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Contradicting sources? Everytime you read "unconditional surrender of the BQ" you do have a contradiction to these. As for the massacre, we don't have "sources contradicting their deaths" - we do have two scholars doubting the figures and we accurately and neutrally report their view without endorsing it and without giving it undue weight next to the scholarly consensus - based on the historical sources . that the massacre indeed occured. Str1977 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Bless sins, it seems that Aminz was gracious enough to provide us with at least one of the sources that these authors used. Can you see if there are more, maybe some link to a bibliography or copy of a bibliography? Str1977, as you hopefully read and didn't skip, Aminz showed that they did use other sources as I said was a probable reason for contradiction. Do you still have a reason to call them unreliable just b/c they have a different view influenced by a different source from the same period as other sources that suggests otherwise? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Mik, I have read the links provided above except for the one that doesn't leed to any text (Ibn Kathir). I never claimed that Khadduri doesn't use sources, only that unfortunately the googlebooks link does not name them (skipping over the pages with the notes - one more reason to prefer footnotes to endnotes). Matters have complicated by the claim that the BQ did not surrender unconditionally but conditionally, putting several WP articles in the wrong. Could I ask anyone to provide missing references and missing source texts (obviously not referring to those already linked) so that we all sort this out? If they are not translated, maybe anyone's language knowledge can help? Str1977 Theres a link to Ibn Kathir? Then I suppose we have another example of miscommunication b/c from what I've been reading of your posts, I've been getting the continued impression that you don't believe these authors have any sources to cite and their apparent contradiction to other authors is a sign of unreliability. Its a matter of style the author uses for his writing. I think maybe some consider using footnotes continually would clutter their pages, especially where there are many citations in certain passages. Errr isn't this the matter of "contradiction", that some authors assert it was one or the other? I have already put the request up in the air for the other 2. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Mik, There is a link to Ibn Kathir in general but not to any one text from a book or a chapter. I do not dispute that these authors do base themselves on sources. It is these sources I want to see. In Khadduri's case, the footnote (which contains the info about the source) is lost in the linked ersion. Sure it is a matter of style. I was just voicing my stylistic preference. In printed books it spares the reader flipping back and forth, in digital sources it prevents cutting of the invaluabe references (as it happened here). Sure, that is contradiction and this appears to be the case here. However, we do have to understand the whole issue if we want to include it properly, not just write a nice sentence of "some say this, some say that". Thanks. Str1977 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Str1977 What, you mean his wiki article? BTW, I have access to the first 2 volumes of his biography of Muhammad but not the others; sadly that won't help with this article. Well hopefully they're still working on it. In the mean time I might suggest an author or two of my own if you don't mind examining another as well. Yeah and that sounds very agreeable but what can you do? Understandable, I think. No problem. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Mik, No, what I meant was this link, provided by BS with the words >>here's another medieval source: Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya (Ibn Kathir), page 166 of the 2000 version as translated from Arabic to English by Trevor Le Gassick([19]). Even according to this source "the Banu Qurayza agreed to submit to the authority of Sa'ad."<< As I said, it doesn't link to the actual text. Yes, I hope so. I am open to any input from you. Nothing unfortunately. Yep. Str1977 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Str1977 What do you mean the actual text? The link takes me right to the page where Ibn Kathir is discussing the current topic. Do you mean you want to see the original Arabic? OK then. Tell me, what do you think of 2 people: Martin Lings and Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. Both have written biographies of Muhammad. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Mik, The link takes me to a page saying "Compiled in the 14th-century AD by the Syrian scholar Ibn Kathir, volume three of this text continues to detail the background, life and mission of the prophet Muhammad. It details the numerous battles and campaigns waged between 3 AH and 8 AH to defend and spread the religion of Islam." not to the text of the source. Of course, I am not interesting in Arabic as I cannot read it but to an English (or similar) translation. Bring them on. What do they say? 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Str1977 Well thats peculiar, I see what you see but on a side panel. Centered on the screen though is page 166 of volume 3 with the full text and exactly what Bless sins says is on there. Will you take my word for it or would you rather want to find the possible problem with your inability to load the full page? BTW, you know, I think you could get this text at the library too if you want to check it out there; thats where I go to read it. ??? They say? On what? They say the life of Muhammad. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Mik, Problem is that I simply take BS rendering because it is so short, limited to half a sentence. Can you not simply cite the whole passage you deem relevant. And no, I have no clue why the page doesn't load. Getting these books in the library would take some time. It would be quicker if you simply cited the relevant passages. About the issue we are talking about of course, i.e. the BQ or more specifically their surrender and the subsequent events. Str1977 (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Str1977 So the problem is you don't believe how he's reading it so you want to read it yourself? Don't be lazy :-P. They made biographies so yes they would include what took place here. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I want to know what the source is saying. Unfortunately, some people here are prone to post only very small chunks of text and then expect others to understand. Well, I have ordered the Lings book but it will probably take some time. What do the books say about our issue here. I care not for their titles or whether they say something about our issue (I assume that because you bring them up) - the question is what they are saying. Str1977 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (OD) I don't think this is very productive. If Str1977 wants to review the sources, it is up to him to do so -- if there were multiple editors disputing the same information, it might make sense to provide the relevant text, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. This is so convoluted, I can't even decipher why this is still being discussed... can someone tell me what the actual issue is here? Shell babelfish 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Let me sum it up the best I can: Either Aminz or Bless (forgot which) cited the sources that Str was disputing the material of b/c they seemed to contradict on some points with authors already cited in the article so he thought they were either misrepresenting sources or not using sources at all. However, the link citations don't always give a bibliography on the page that the material is being discussed so I suggest that Aminz or Bless find those. There is one source by Ibn Kathir who is among the cited links. However, for some reason Str can't see whats in the link. I can and I so can Aminz and Bless apparently but Str can't. If you want, you can check it out and see if it works for you here ([20]). Anyhow, b/c of that Str can't "review the source". Therefore I've decide the cite passage: Imam Ahmad stated that Muhammad b. Jafar related to him, quoting Shuba from Sa'd b. Ibrahim, quoting Abu Umama b. Sahl, who said, "I heard Abu Sa'id al-Khudri say, 'Banu Qurayza agreed to sumit to the authority of Sa'd b. Mu'adh. So the Messenger of God (SAAS) sent for Sa'd who came to him on a donkey. When he drew near the mosque, the Messenger of God (SAAS) said, "Stand up for your master" (or "your better"). He then said, "These people have submitted to your authority." He (Sa'd) stated, "We shall execute their warriors and take their children prisoner." The Messenger of God (SAAS) commented, "you have given judgement with God's decree." He may have said, "You have given judgement with the malik's ('the ruler's') decree." According to another account, the word used was malak, "angel".'" The other thing I brought up just now, which I probably should have just added into the points to discuss, is I want to see what he thinks of 2 other authors who've written biographies on Muhammad. However, we've never had any formal debate on them so I just inserted it here on a side note sort of thing. So far though, Str has just kept asking what "do they say" from which I still don't quite understand what he wants to know specifically about them. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Regarding the first point: Str1977 claims to draw a conclusion from reliable sources that contradicts some other sources. It must be noted that the sources themselves do not explicitly contradict each other (i.e. no source says that the arbitration did not happen, though many sources are silent on the issue). In this case I don't think its fair to say that respected scholars are wrong on an issue. The very essence of WP:V and WP:NOR is that scholars, not wikipedians, define what fact is.Bless sins (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) That's incorrect on a few points: Nobody claims "that the arbitration did not happen", hence it there is no dispute about it. The dispute is not about whether an arbitration happened but between which parties. Sources DO contradict each other as some clearly state that the BQ surrendered unconditionally, whereas one says that the surrendered on the condition that ... Please do not (again) turn this into a WP:V/NOR muddle. That is not the issue. The issue is how to include this all. We are not robots and do not want the article become a mess of contradictory and unconnected factbites. Str1977 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Master Jedi, thanks very much for the citation. Based on it I can now say that we can include a note that the BQ also submitted to Sad as arbitrator. We can source this to Khaduri (as secondary source) and Ibn Kathir (as primary source). I still object in principle to Abu-Nimer but that doesn't make any difference to the content now. The remaining problem is the claim "that the surrender of Qurayza was not unconditional but rather the tribe agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing." (stated above) However, I did not find this in the linked sources and I think right now this was a confusion between the military surrender (which was unconditional) and the formal acceptance of the terms hatched out by Muhammad and the Aws. Formal because the BQ really didn't have any choice. I think this enables us to bring this part of the issue to a conclusion. Str1977 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Str1977, no problem. That sounds fabulous. However, I do object somewhat to Ibn Kathir being a primary source b/c he too was a historian who gathered the actual primary sources (recorded accounts/ahadith) and made a biography plus he was many centuries after. As for people citing him, it is ok for secondary sources to cite other secondary sources AFAIK. Wait, there's more you should know about the BQ and how their incident is told in Ibn Kathir's biography. It seems he tells the incident over and over as it is recorded by past historians and various ahadith not just b/c each has their own variation here and there but b/c Ibn Kathir probably thought each had some validity or authenticity to their narratives. Anyhow, there is an account in it which kind of relates that they might have chosen Sa'd themselves.: "The Messenger of God (SAAS) proceeded on to Banu Qurayza and besieged them for 25 days. When their suffering from the siege grew intense, a message was sent telling them to accept authority of the Messenger of God (SAAS). They sought advice from Abu Lubaba b. 'Abd al-Mundhir, and he made a sign to them indicating execution. Banu Qurayza then said they would accept the authority of Sa'd b. Mu'adh. The Messenger of God (SAAS) told them, 'Then do accept the authority of Sa'd b. Mu'adh!'" I sure hope so. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC) With primary source I meant an actual source stemming from earlier times as opposed to academic research. If you will, Ibn Kathir is a collection of sources. The passage you quote of course would mess up things again if it said what you say it does. Only it doesn't. It simply say they "would accept him" not that they chose him. I can understand how one can come up with the idea in that isolated passage. However, this is now clearly Original research. We now what the academic research say. Str1977 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC) It simply say they "would accept him" not that they chose him. - Actually in this passage theres no indication that he was pre-chosen by Muhammad as a choice for them, it just says that they took AL seriously and so they went with an alternative. However, this is now clearly Original research. We now what the academic research say. - I think Bless Sins mentioned a source that says they said it as is apparent from the slight discussion of it above. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure that Khadduri refers this to Ibn Kathir. But whether he does, or not, is not of concern. Khadduri is an academic and scholarly source, Ibn Kathir isn't. I think the consensus was that Abu Nimer is also a reliable source (particularly since he published in a peer-review journal). Also you are forgetting that there is a third source: a book by Buchanan, Moore and Hashmi. Perhaps we can include the fact that they agreed to Sa'd as an arbitrator without saying "the surrender of Qurayza was not unconditional".Bless sins (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) I am not sure about this either but at least I now have certainty that this did not come out of the thin air or by confusing BQ and BA (unless Ibn Kathir's source do that but that is clearly beyond our scope). Ibn Kathir is the primary source on this and as such should be mentioned. Note that WP does not forbid the usage of primary sources if we simply state that says this and that. Please do not falsely claim that there was any consensus to include Abu Nimer. I am tending to be lenient but false claims affect that in a negative way. If there was a consensus I would know about it. Indeed, the "was not unconditional" should stay out. If I remember correctly, it was simply a claim made by one editor (either you, Mik or Aminz) based on a linked source but which I did not find in that source. I think the passage would read like this: After relating that the BQ surrendered and that the BA protested and wanted arbitration and came to terms with Muhammad and Muhammad appointed Sad arbitrator, we should simply note: "According to Ibn Kathir, the BQ accepted Sad as arbitrator as well" or "... submitted to Sad as arbitrator as well". Then we go on to Sad's decision. Str1977 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) But that is not accurate. If we have to attribute, then we say "According to Ibn Kathir, Majid Khadduri, Abu-Nimer, Sohail Hashmi, Alan Buchanan and Margaret Moore, the Banu Qurayza accepted Sa'd as an arbitrator." However that appears to be ridiculous. When so many scholars support a statement, we should simply note "The Banu Qurayza agreed Sa'd as an arbitrator." The above quote doesn't make any note of an arbitration, nor the fact they also chose the arbitrator, which our sources clearly do. In that case the most suitable phrase would be "The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, an arbitrator also chosen by them."Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Indeed that would be ridiculous. We can always say "the BQ reportedly accepted Sad as well". I mentioned Ibn Kathir because he is the source. You are mistaken about your "so many scholars" (note that some of them are not consensus to include). Those you otherwise deem most reliable do not mention this. In any case, we have to note that this is less then certain. Str1977 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Something tells me that isn't going to be enough; as was one of Str1977's points, contradiction exists with some authors already on the page and some authors we are considering adding so I present the following possible compromises, each has some variation b/c I know how everyone's so picky on what details should be included where: The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. However, it is not quite clear as to who had a say in choosing him in particular. Some historians suggest that Muhammad chose Sa'd after Banu Aws petitioned for a say in the fate of Banu Qurayza while others suggest it was Banu Qurayza themselves who took seriously the warning from Abu Lubaba.(references) The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. However, it is not quite clear as to who had a say in choosing him in particular. Some historians suggest that Muhammad chose Sa'd while others suggest it was Banu Qurayza themselves who chose. (references) Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I reject this. It turns a certain reading of texts coming up now (Ibn Kathir and the secondary sources mentioned) into the default version, the reading in contradiction with the sources already present. I insist that the current version, explicitely contradicted by no other, to be used as basis. Str1977 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Don't be stubborn, we've already accomplished a good amount. Now please answer these points so we can figure out specifically what the problem is, please. I will first state the point I believe to be true and then I will give a reason, please read that too before typing something in response. Everything may not be a contradiction though it looks it. - As Ibn Kathir shows, not all the authors use all of or the same primary sources, therefore they may receive seemingly inconsistent accounts. However, It may be that in some order, all are true but some authors chose to go only by some and ignore others. Mentioning BQ agreeing to Sa'd as an arbiter does not contradict what the present authors on the page say. - It may be that Muhammad talked to the BA and suggested the arbiter and then took it to the BQ but again Saying BQ chose the arbiter is a valid claim. - Considering the last citation I made and also considering the fact that other authors also apparently abide by it and possibly other sources, its safe to say its not a figment of anyone's imagination. That is why when I gave the above compromise I made it a 2 part thing as is the model that I have observed in the article in several other spots when authors made differing conjectures. Again, it does not necessarily contradict whats presently on the page, not counting conjectures however. - Its very plausible that Muhammad might have asked the BQ first about arbitration and then was approached by the BA to whome he put up the choice of arbiters. I await your reply. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC) This is not stubborness. As for your claims: Everything may not be a contradiction though it looks it. - Agree in essence, though there still may be a contradiction between the secondary "sources". But not necessarily. Mentioning BQ agreeing to Sa'd as an arbiter does not contradict what the present authors on the page say. - Totally agree. In fact, your explanation is also pretty much mine: the BA insisted on arbitration, M. asked "how about one of your chiefs", they agreed and he chose Sad. The BQ accepted this as well. Saying BQ chose the arbiter is a valid claim. - No, it isn't. None of our sources make that claim. I am not sure about your claim in italics but as for the explanation, I think it very unplausible, given that they had surrendered unconditionally, given that our sources make the arbitration the result of the BA's protest. Str1977 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 Str1977 (Talk | contribs) (134,333 bytes) (undo) Hey you're not Jedi, I'm Jedi; Impostor! there still may be a contradiction between the secondary "sources". - And that is why they are secondary b/c it is their job to interpret the primary sources the best they can, only sometimes they can disagree on how exactly something happened or what in all did happened, doesn't mean one is wrong or they're all wrong or whatever. So thats why I suggested the latter part of the compromise. Totally agree. - Sounds good so far. No, it isn't. None of our sources make that claim. - I will repost what I gave in explanation to the 2nd citation of IK of why it might since Bless Sins response might have overpowered mine and you didn't respond to it (I think, correct me if I'm wrong): Actually in this passage theres no indication that he was pre-chosen by Muhammad as a choice for them, it just says that they took AL seriously and so they went with an alternative. given that our sources make the arbitration the result of the BA's protest. - I mean that what if he approached the BQ first and asked who they wanted, they said Sa'd and he's alright with it so when he's going to call him. Then, the BA approach him unaware that he had already decided the arbitration in their tribe's hands and ask that they do it so he suggests Sa'd to them too and they're alright with it too. I'm not saying to put that in the article but its explaining a plausible possibility of why a sources might suggest that BQ chose their arbiter. I await your reply. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I sincerely apologize for the mistyped signature, Master Jedi. It was the result from copy-pasting your points in order to reply. 1. I don't see why we are still arguing about this. As I said, they may disagree with each other or not. If they disagree than only one can be right. But it is not our job to decide this. 3. Actually in this passage theres no indication that he was pre-chosen by Muhammad as a choice for them, it just says that they took AL seriously and so they went with an alternative. - yes, but neither is there an indication that they chose him. I think you are reading that into the text. Only then does there pop up a contradiction. 4. You may work out such a scenario for yourself but it is OR. You are adding a lot of things to what our sources, primary and secondary, are telling us. But if you want to see it like that for yourself, so be it. Str1977 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I know, I was kidding with the outburst  :-): I don't see why we are still arguing about this. - B/c it looked like you were still arguing ;-). I think you are reading that into the text. Only then does there pop up a contradiction. - Maybe but then what were those 6 something sources that Bless pulled out saying that they supported this? Have you checked and seen if they do indeed not really say that? You may work out such a scenario for yourself but it is OR. - Which is why I said I didn't want to put it in the article, it was just for discussion purposes. But if you want to see it like that for yourself, so be it. - Will it change your mind >.>? Alright then, try this compromise on for size: The Banu Qurayza (also) agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Sure, Master Jedi. 2. What are these six sources? I am not aware of them. Can you point me to them? 3. Exactly. I didn't understand that the first time around. 4. No. As I said, I think this stretching the evidence a bit far (unless BS's six source really now do the trick.) Try this: [After relating the M-BA dispute] The Banu Qurayza also agreed to submit to Sa'd [nothing more needed as we describe him before] as arbitrator. Str1977 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Here's what he said: But that is not accurate. If we have to attribute, then we say "According to Ibn Kathir, Majid Khadduri, Abu-Nimer, Sohail Hashmi, Alan Buchanan and Margaret Moore, the Banu Qurayza accepted Sa'd as an arbitrator." Follow up questions are the same as in my previous response of course. "mhm", "ok then", and "works for me" to the last 3 points respectively. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see. Thanks. Though these are only three sources. More importantly: "the Banu Qurayza accepted Sa'd as an arbitrator." is not the same as "the BQ chose Sad". I am fine with either "accepted Sad as arbitrator" or "agreed to submit to Sad as arbitrator". Str1977 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Alright then, now lets ask the others. Aminz, Bless Sins, Shell, we need you down here for input on the compromise. I agree it is fair compromise but of course I'm not the only one disputing let alone the one who was involved in it first. So what do you all think? Can we finally move on to the next point of dissension amongst these authors? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I would accept the following Jedi MK's version: The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. However, it is not quite clear as to who had a say in choosing him in particular. Some historians suggest that Muhammad chose Sa'd while others suggest it was Banu Qurayza themselves who chose. The reason for the strike out is that historians themselves do not record any discrepency or contradiction. A wikipedian says there is a contradiction, not a scholar. If there is a contradiction we simply note the supposedly contradictory views, without necessarily saying that there is a contradiction. A better (shorter) version would be: The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. Historians suggest that he was chosen by Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Unacceptable. This still turns matters on their heads by making the BQ the prime mover of this all when in fact they had the least say in the matter. We must proceed: BQ surrender, BA protest, BA-M agreement, M chooses Sad, BQ accept. I will accept no less. Str1977 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Let's see where the problem is. You agree the sources are reliable. Do you agree that the sources say that the Qurayza chose Sa'd? Let me make the last question easier for you by providing some quotes (emphasis added): Khadduri says: "Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, agreed to submit thier dispute to a person chosen by them" Buchanan, Moore and Hashmi say: "a Muslim arbitrator of thier choosing." Abu-Nimer says: "the Prophet and Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them" BTW, did I mention that Khadduri uses Ibn Hisham - the earliest source available - to source his claims?Bless sins (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) "Do you agree that the sources say that the Qurayza chose Sa'd?" - No, I don't. Our sources realate that Muhammad chose Sad out of the chiefs of the BA. Str1977 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC) ...didn't I just quote the sources above? I even bolded the word "choose"/"choosing". Perhaps Shell should come in and determine whether the souces above mention "choose" or not.Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC) But you forget those sources that say different things, sources like your Saint Watt or anyone else we cited before you started this all. Also, not all your sources above are reliable sources (Abu Nimer). Ah, and please do not introduce new sources (Ibn Hisham) without quoting them. Str1977 (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Also, not all your sources above are reliable sources (Abu Nimer). - I thought you said the reliability was not in question, just "how they're used", why do you bring up it then? please do not introduce new sources (Ibn Hisham) without quoting them. - Actually he's a primary source (by your given definition); Bless is only stating that a modern day secondary source author utilized him for his work. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC) I am sorry, Mik, what I meant was: not all your sources are used in a way proper to reliable sources - as I said Abu Nimer is a RS on certain things but not good for simple historical facts. Yes, I know he's a primary source. However, I don't think we should complicate matters at that time by introducing new sources ... unless they are needed, of course. In that case, we should have a closer look. I now have the Lings book at hand. It doesn't look very impressive or scholarly to me. Still, what was it again what you wanted to use it for? Str1977 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Actually, you did agree that they were reliable and chose not to discuss the issue further. If you have any specific problems with any of the sources, you need to spell those out so they can be discussed instead of falling back to a generic "its not reliable" -- this position does little more than continue to stall the mediation. Do you have sources that state something other than the Qurayza chose Sa'd? If so, it would seem that there are two prevailing points of view and per WP:NPOV, both should be covered in the article -otherwise, it is clear that a number of reliable sources say that the Qurayza chose Sa'd and there is no reason to exclude that information from the article. Shell babelfish 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC) That is yet to be seen by me or mr. mediator (wherever he went) as we have only just finished one piece of who know how many debated items on the BQ page list of changes. We introduced Ibn Kathir and he worked out just fine, sort of. Depends on your views of whats scholarly or what it takes to impress you, i.e. both are subjective. See my last post on the Abu Lubaba discussion for why I bring him up. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Shell, can you please lend a hand? In my post on 18:50, 16 February 2008 I provided quotes from the sources. I claim that those quotes are evidence that the sources say that the Banu Qurayza chose the arbitrator. Str1977 disagrees. What is your opinion on this, and how do we move along?Bless sins (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this discussion collapsed as if it were finished.

I have stated my position, what I am willing to accept. And yes, of course I have sources that state that Muhammad chose Sad from among the Banu Aws. These are the sources already included in the article.

I have also stated how and to what extent the "sources" are "reliable". Str1977 ^(talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We never doubted there are sources that state Muhammad chose Sa'd, what you doubt however is whether there are sources that suggest that BQ actually chose him. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why should we rewrite the passage in a way that suggests that the BQ chose Sad, totally in contradiction to the most reliable secondary sources and with no foundation in the primary sources? Str1977 ^(talk) 10:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No source says "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd". Atleast you have not provided a source. I have repeatedly asked you to provide a source, and you have not provided one. On the cotnrary reliable secondary sources (quoting primary sources) do say that Banu Qurayza chose Sa'd. This is very clear to everyone here, and I'm tired of repeating this.

Regarding the closure of this discussion, Shell made some closing remarks in his/her edit on 21:34, 23 February 2008 above ("Actually, you did agree that they..."), I suggest you read it (if you haven't already). Further discussion, which is regarding the wording of this, is to be continued in "Moving on" as Shell has requested.Bless sins (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop blurring the issue, BS.

No source says "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd". That's an unreasonable demand and futhermore not true. Sources say that the BQ surrendered unconditionally. Which rids them of any further say. Also, sources covering the entire affair (including your cherished Watt) do not support your claim.

I am also tired of repeating this. If you are no longer interested in this mediation, so be it. The aim here is not a "in the end BS gets what he wants".

I will not post in "Moving on" as that section seems to be without any purpose. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"and futhermore not true" So which source says "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd"?? Saying the Qurayza surrendered uncoditionally is not equal to saying "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd". This is simply your OR.Bless sins (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what frustrates me - I have already answered your question: the BQ according to many reliable sources "surrendered unconditionally". This contradicts your claim. Your demand is furthermore unreasonable since you cannot expect a secondary source (and much less a primary source) to clearly state "and the Jews did not chose him", unless in a critical treatment of the books that include such a claim.

However another idea comes to my mind, which I will post below. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Shell we need you here. Str1977 wants to know why the discussion was "collapsed" and where we stand right now.Bless sins (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BS, please no. I do not want to know why the discussion was "collapsed". Well, actually I would be curious but that question is relly not important to the mediation. There are more important things. Please, BS, if I have a question for Shell, I will ask her myself.

My point is that the discussion should be happening in this section, not anywhere else. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another idea comes to my mind just now: As far as I see it, we have a few secondary "sources" say that "Sad was of the BQ's chosing" or "the BQ chose Sad" - while the primary sources make no such claim, restricting themselves to, in different wordings, an acceptance by the BQ of Sad, which would be perfectly in line with the position held by Watt et al. (namely that Muhammad chose Sad from the BA). My idea is this, mention (as outlined above, somewhere in the collapsed text) that M. chose S. from the BA and that the BQ accepted. And then add (in text or footnote) that some authors take this as "Sad being of their chosing", in contradiction to Watt et al. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Its clear that we have reliable sources stating that the Qurayza chose Sa'd and I see no reason to exclude that from the article. If Str1977 wants to give details about what sources he thinks are unreliable on this point, we can discuss that. If he wants to give details on another proposed wording or another major point of view that needs to be included as well, we can discuss that too.

I think it would be helpful from now on, if everyone involved tried to help work on a solution. That means instead of saying "no, i cannot agree", tell us what you can agree with or tell us how you would like to change things (and yes, some of you are already doing this). Shell ^babelfish 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can agree to whatever is within the limit of what the sources say. I'm ready to negotiate with the wording Str1977 proposes, prvided the wording respects WP:V and includes whatever the sources say (without an OR).Bless sins (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Since some people have muddied the waters, let me reiterate that the scope of this mediation is the article Banu Qurayza, no more, no less. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the parallel to the Torah be mentioned?

If everyone can give a brief overview of their feelings on this one, hopefully we can move forward with something :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shell Kinney (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bless_sins' view: I have found three sources that explicitly state that the judgment to have the men of Qurayza executed was based on a verse from the Torah. Ofcourse, I think any such statements should be attributed and not treated as fact (because interpretation of any religious scripture is highly subjective). If you note, we are also mentioning the Qur'an in this article, thus I see no problem in mentioning the Jewish scriptures, given that the Banu Qurayza were Jews. Finally, we can add to this with content other users may bring along, but I insist that all sources used be explicitly referring to Banu Qurayza. A source that has nothing to do with Banu Qurayza should not be in this article.Bless sins (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Jedi's view: Simply if a reliable source or sources on the matter of the history of Islam, Banu Qurayza, or whatever suggest this interpretation or scholarly conjecture as someone put it I think, we should include it as such especially considering the numerous free thinking negative and/or one sided interpretations of the Muslims actions. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Str's view: If the whole issue should be included, it must be done in a balanced way, not by simply dropping three handpicked sources into the article (which BS did before). We must not give this undue weight nor must we forget to provide the necessary context of Torah interpretation (as a former version of this did). I said IF we should include this because this was once removed by consensus (as being too much of a fringe view) and will not agree to a restoration simply based on the views of four editors (me included) if others (outside of this mediation) are known to disagree. Personally, I am neutral as to whether to accurately include it (as described above) or leave it out. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some questions for everyone:

• Does everyone agree that the sources are reliable?
• Does everyone agree this is a minority viewpoint?
• Does anyone have a proposed wording for this information?

Some questions for Str1977:

• What do you mean by "handpicked sources"? Shell ^babelfish 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Shell, here are my answers:

• Most sources who make the claim are of questionable reliability,
• I certainly do.
• The way this was once included. But WAIT: there is yet no consensus to include this at all.
• I meant: when BS decided to re-include this issue, he did not go back to the original wording and amplified it with his sources. No, he started at zero and wrote it himself, based on his sources, in an extremely onesided manner. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please give us some more details on which source you don't believe is reliable and explain why.
• Looks like we're all agreed that this is a viewpoint, so, I don't see any lack of consensus.
• We all write from our sources. If you think is was worded in a one-sided manner, please provide an alternate wording or comment on whether or not you agree with the wording below (if you do not, please provide an alternative instead of just saying no.)
• Is Str1977 requesting I prove the reliability of my sources (because I'd be more than happy to).
• Well, we have no source saying this is a minority viewpoint. I agree that this viewpoint is not present in many sources. I'd further like to point out that we are making comments about Muhammad based on only one source and the Qur'an based on only one source too.
• The "original" wording (which, if it is what I think it is) contained sources completely irrelevant to Banu Qurayza. Perhaps Str1977 should copy and paste it here so we know what he/she is talking about.

My woridng is "Daniel C. Peterson, Martin Lings and Caesar Farah state that this judgment was in accordance with the Jewish law as stated in Deut. 20:10-14."

• Regarding "hand-picked sources": I've never stopped Str1977 from adding reliable sources to this (provided they deal specifcally with Banu Qurayza). On the contrary Str1977 continues to remove some sources but keep others.Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets wait and see which sources Str1977 thinks are unreliable and why. Thank you for providing a proposed wording. Shell ^babelfish 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

BS,

• "I've never stopped Str1977 from adding reliable sources ..." - Well, big deal. You added stuff going against the previous consensus. As I uphold the consensus (without being internally bound to it) I of course could not honour your additions in such a way. Also, as long as you drop your uncooperative attitude (which you displayed time and again, not only evidenced by your recent constant blanket reverts) I will not honour your unilateral additions in such a way. I am not here to make your POV pushing acceptable - you should learn to make NPOV edits yourself.
• In your first addition I give you the benefit of the doubt as you might not have known that this was covered earlier but after I pointed it out to you, you knew and hence have no excuse ignoring it.
• Now, having had a look at Lings I can say it is no usuable source at all. It is merely a narrative of Muhammad's life with hardly any critical apparatus or scholarly observations. It was disputed in earlier discussions that Farah said what is claimed here. I never voiced any opposition to Peterson.

Shell,

you ask for a proposed wording. As I stated, the issue of whether to include this at all is not decided yet. Nonetheless, the former wording was this. I could live with this and this could also be amplified by other sources BUT let me make it clear that this in no way rejudices the issue of whether to include this.

It should not be a mediator's job to jump ahead of this issue. Unless this primary issue is solved first, I will not accept any wording suggestions.

Finally, BS, you have claimed that The "original" wording (which, if it is what I think it is) contained sources completely irrelevant to Banu Qurayza.' - Just because it hurts your pressuppositions and your POV intentions doesn't make it irrelevant. It is clear that once again you want the article to say that the Jews are to blame for their own massacre. It is not for Muhammad or Sad or any other Muslims to expound what the Jewish law is, regardless of any pretensions of "Abraham's religion". Str1977 ^(talk) 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Shell you are needed here immediately. Some of Str1977's comments are not in anyway relevant to this mediation. For example, "Just because it hurts your pressuppositions and your POV intentions doesn't make it irrelevant. It is clear that once again you want the article to say that the Jews are to blame for their own massacre."

Those comments are completely unnecessary and seem uncivil. To me respecting the other is a big must for continuing mediation. I would like Shell to comment on the above before continuing.Bless sins (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that this mediation is going to end productively. We have one participant who has wasted a good deal of time arguing in circles and refusing to offer any suggestions or add to the discussion. Str1977 keeps saying "No." while everyone else tries to discuss the issues and offer compromises. He has now gone so far to tell me how I do my job and to make comments that are disturbing for religious and racial reasons.

There is a consensus of three other editors that this material should be included and Str1977 also agreed that this is a minority viewpoint; at this point, that solves the primary issue. Str1977 appears to be objecting based on his opinion and some religious acrimony - these are not reasons grounded in Wikipedia policy.

Unless Str1977 can indicate that he is willing to continue in good faith on the mediation and avoid any further attacks on other participants, I will be closing the mediation. Shell ^babelfish 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree that at the moment the mediation does not ssem to end productively. However, I myself protest against any attempts to lay the blame on my doorstep.

It is not me arguing in circles.

It is not me stonewalling discussions. We would already have an agreement on the larger part of the "sources" issue if others would not insist that only a complete fulfillment of their wishes is a proper solution. Or so it at least seems to me.

"There is a consensus of three other editors that this material should be included and Str1977 also agreed that this is a minority viewpoint; at this point, that solves the primary issue." - This comment is indeed disturbing. Three editors might agree but we must also consider that there are others outside of this mediation. Agreeing that it is "a minority viewpoint" does not solve the primary issue. Ever heard of the "undue weight" policy? Indeed, the primary issue has not even been addressed by anyone other me and Shell (but he only through now uttering the supposed solution)

"He has now gone so far to tell me how I do my job and to make comments that are disturbing for religious and racial reasons." If you can't take the heat ... I must say that so far you have stayed out pretty much (I am not blaming you, you probably have your reasons - there is a life outside this mediation). There hardly has been any mediation going on. And now you jump ahead of the issue that is actually controversial. That's no way to proceed.

Re BS's complaints, I did not attack him or anyone personally. However, I do see what BS is doing outside of this mediation, I see what he did before and where he is getting at. I would be glad if he proved me wrong.

Finally, some people here seem to be forgetting that a mediation is about finding agreement between various parties. I am one of those parties. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been asked to specify your concerns a number of times, instead of doing so you choose to accuse other editors of having agendas and me of mediating improperly. These types of statements do nothing to help resolve the problems and simply inflame tensions. If you believe there is undue weight or the sources are unreliable, please give some kind of logical explanation as to why that is -- we cannot guess what your feelings are on the topic and other editors cannot address your concerns without knowing what they are. We are also unconcerned with editors not in the mediation, we are concerned with working things out between the editors here.

Attacking other editors is not acceptable. No one needs to "take the heat" - this is a collaborative editing environment and in order to maintain a healthy atmosphere the community has created guidelines you're expected to follow. No personal attacks is not negotiable. Instead of telling us what other editors are doing wrong, please focus on the content.

Now, if you would like to explain why you feel this may be undue weight, provide other sources for your viewpoints or discuss which sources you feel are unreliable and why, I'm sure everyone would be happy to engage in that discussion with you. Shell ^babelfish 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to make your POV pushing acceptable - you should learn to make NPOV edits yourself. - Hopefully, I'll only have to say this once: comments like these don't do anything except aggravate relations with the other disputing party and every time you revert Bless' changes, thats all you ever say yet you fail to realize b/c its all still in dispute, neither side can claim this hence why we're asking a mediator to guide us in the right. Also IIRC, Bless only started stating this as his reason for reverting after he got tired of you saying it.

It should not be a mediator's job to jump ahead of this issue. - This is definitely uncalled for and no one should even have to tell you why. Oh well Mr. Mediator could not always be around as much as he could've or should have but thats then and flaking him for it now only hinders the mediation process even more.

Thats my 2 cents till we can get back on track of the mediation.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was upset and frustrated yesterday and though I can stand by everything I said (and insist that I did not issue any personal attacks), I see that many things I said indeed were not helpful. Maybe true but not helpful. That doesn't mean that I will now simply submit to seemlingly predetermined roads (to explain: apparently, some people here have already decided that the issue will be included, passing over that issue).

"We are unconcerned with editors outside the mediation" - well, but they are not outside of WP and in the end, any solution that we work out could immediately be reverted by them. In any case, we should be clear that this mediation cannot work if some people think to go via majority rule.

As for undue weight, this claim is clearly beyond the pale of mainstream academic historiography. Watt, for instance, who mentions Arafat's "The massacre never happened", does not even grace that claim with a note. Also, the better sources for it amount to a "the ruling agreed with Deuteronomy" which isn't much and doesn't go as far as to say "Sad based himself on Deuteronomy". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing case

Since Str1977 has now indicated that he will not stop the personal attacks nor abide by instructions of the mediator or the structure chosen for the mediation, I have no choice but to close the medation. Thank you for your time. Shell ^babelfish 18:24, 3 March 2008 (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.