Jump to content

Talk:Patrol of Waddan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Battle of Waddan)

Change title

[edit]

@Admins : Please change the Title to Battle of Waddan. Right now it is a redirect -- Raziman T V (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've filed a request at WP:Requested moves for the article to be moved to that title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been moved to the proper title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source discussion

[edit]

A discussion has been started on the reliable sources noticeboard] concerning the reliability of Rodney J. Phillips' book The Muslim Empire and the Land of Gold. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced data

[edit]

After Muhammad and his followers had migrated to Medina in 622, the Quraysh confiscated the belongings they had left behind

  • The source he uses for this claim is pg .292 Muhammad, the Messenger of Islam: His Life & Prophecy
  • I do not have an issue with this claim although the wrong page is used as a reference it is pg. 290, even then that page does not mention that line (another page does). That page only mentions this article.
  • What I have an issue with is that he keeps removing information about why Muhammad attacked a DIFFERENT tribe called the Banu Dharma
  • He has removed the following:

According to the Persian Muslim scholar Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh, the purpose of this raid was to plunder Abu Sufyan's caravan and that some companions of Muhammad stayed behind as if they didn't ,they would need to fight because they believed plunder was the objective and not war against the Quraysh

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you make false accusations and baseless statements. The first source was not introduced by me here. Nor was the statement you are referring to introduced by me. Also, you are misattributing sources. The so called "Persian Muslim" scholar you are referring to does not state that the holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ ordered the attack for plunder. You are taking the word "plunder" out of context within his statement. This is in clear violation of WP:Synthesis, as you are taking passages and trying to draw certain conclusions. The author instead states that many of the great companions did not decide to go, because they had the perception that the raid was about plunder. This is his point of view. This edition is also from 1893 and is extremely outdated. More modern sources, like Afzalur Rahman's do not make mention of such a point of view that the companions had. The names of the so called companions are also not mentioned by Ibn Khavandshah. You have clearly shown your extreme POV, bias and tendency for violating WP:Synthesis. You are also misattributing sources to indicate Ibn Khavandshah has a POV or has made a statement, which he clearly has not. Here is what Afzalur Rahman states about the expedition: "Muhammad went out with a force of seventy men on the 12th of Rajab in the second year of the Hijrah. When he reached Waddan, he did not meet any enemy force but made a peace agreement with Banu Damrah for mutual help, cooperation and security. They promised to remain neutral between the Quraish and the Muslims. It was agreed that the Prophet would not bring his forces against them and they would not assist his enemies. A document was written containing these conditions. Then he returned to Medinah without meeting any enemy forces." The reason given for the expedition is not as you say. The reason of the expedition is far more broad and requires a thorough analysis of the conflict between the Muslims and the Quraysh under Abu Sufyan. Misattributing a source from 1893 does not work in your favour. Xtremedood (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle, invasion, raid, expedition

[edit]

I made a cursory search for various names. I did not check the reliability of the sources listed here and certainly missed many. Please point out any that should be excluded or added.

@Xtremedood: Can you please explain the rationale for renaming the article to "Patrol of .."?

--Rentier (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honesty think we have another user:Jagged 85 here./ I think he makes claims then uses unverifiable references? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the sources do not need to be verifiable online. The full text of Muhammad as a military leader may well refer to it as a patrol. Even if that is the case, it is one source against many. Rentier (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either way am gonna watch out for Xtreme Doods references --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Patrol" is from Afzalur Rahman's source. "Battle of Waddan" is used by Western scholars, however, there was no fighting that took place, so it does not make sense. However, my change was from "Invasion of Waddan", since that is not proven from the source indicated and appears to be OR. "Battle of Waddan" however is a new suggestion, which we may need to discuss. "Expedition of al-Abwa" might be fine. Xtremedood (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rentier: I'm in support of Xtremedood's move. I do find it strange however that you would question the move to "Patrol" (which is backed by a RS), but not Misconceptions2's use of "invasion" in the tile, which has no reference to support it as far as I know. Even Xtremedood's edit summary for the move states: "Source does not refer to it as "invasion." Afzalur Rahman, refers to it as a Patrol. No fighting occurred." Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Andalusi: Misconceptions2's use of "invasion" in the tile, which has no reference to support it as far as I know. Then let me inform you that the version of this article under the invasion title referenced The Sealed Nectar, which says:

This was the first invasion under the leadership of the Messenger of Allah.

Do you still support the move? --Rentier (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ghazwah" does not mean invasion. Also, a description is an appropriate title for an event. Simply taking a sentence and using it to describe an event appears to constitute OR. The Sealed Nectar is also credited with a lot of grammatical mistakes, so I would say that their choice of wording is poor. As I see it "Patrol" or "Expedition of Al-Abwa" are neutral and sourced. I am fine with either. Xtremedood (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patrol of Waddan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrol_of_Waddan&oldid=1209633445"