Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Trench/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

imo

"Most scholars of this episode agree that neither party acted outside the bounds of normal relations in 7th century Arabia. . ."

killing 700 seems harsh for a Holy Man. . .

Matt Cutugno

Bad English

This article isn't written very well. I have made a few minor alterations but this is not my area of expertise.--Madi186 17:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Considered

BS, you apparently like to continue on your "let's blame the Jews" pushing: 

The Banu Qurayza, who were in Medina, are also considered part of the confederacy.

By whom were they considered? When? How? Under what circumstances?

Str1977 (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to any false accusations. I never said "let's blame the Jews". That is completely false.
The statement quoted above is sourced to a reliable source. DO you have a problem with the source?Bless sins (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, BS, and I never said you said it. Please read English according to English usage. Str1977 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Umm, you accused me of "pushing" the phrase "let's blame the Jews". How can I "push" such a phrase except for typing it out (which is what I meant by "said")? The important thing is that you not make false accusations. The minor details are largely irrelevant.Bless sins (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The way it was posted it didn't serve an encyclopedic purpose. Explain the context. By whom? WHen? How? Circumstances?
Ever heard of implication? Str1977 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You can go back to the source if you want the context. The circumstances are provided amply in the article.Bless sins (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Older

I addded some information on who exactly the Muslims were fighting, as well as what exactly is behind the name "Battle of the Trench". I used Safiur-Rahman Mubarakpuri award-winning "The Sealed Nectar" as the source behind the changes I made.

--Nabilqureshi 14:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the 3 links which were clearly anti-islamic; actually, the Karen Armstrong one wasn't anti-Islamic, but someone seems to have highlighted the anti-Islamic parts. I've added a link (with references to various sources) which discusses the battle and no more. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

caravans

Didn't Mecca attack because Mohammed was raiding their caravans?

Yeah, but that was after Muhammed had had several assasination attempts made on him by the Qurayshites (Meccans). Not to mention the fact that his followers had been boycotted from all trade (including food), and forced into ghettos. To top it all off, Muhammed did not kill anyone when he raided their caravans. At best, the attacks was extremely excessive act of revenge, if it was indeed an act of revenge, and not another attempt to get rid of the Quraysh's political adversary.

--Loki Laufeyson 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

New section: "Qur'an's narration of the Battle"

Suggestion: Adding a section containing the relevant Qur'anic verses (e.g. [Quran 33:9]) --Aminz 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This article is totally unsourced. Might someone explain to me where they got all these facts?Timothy Usher 19:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, the writer of this article has given two external links (http://www.thewaytotruth.org/prophetmuhammad/trench.html and http://www.al-islamforall.org/Ghazwat/ghazwat/trench.htm) at the bottom of the article. The author got the information from those two websites. Thank You [[User:Salman01|Salman]

The whole article is pretty much a verbatim cut and paste from here:

http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml

Rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite. As it stands, tt is a heap of absurd claims written in unwikipedic language. Pecher Talk 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, can you please be more specific. Can you please point out the part of the article where u think “unwikipedic language” occurred? Someone might not see the mistake that u are seeing, because the mistake that u are talking about may not be a mistake in reality, since u r looking it from your POV. So can you please point out the reason why u think this article should be rewritten, and if you point is valid then my brother I am (along with other wikipedians) going to try my best to help you as much as possible. Thank You Salman

Fair use rationale for Image:Khundaq1.jpg

Image:Khundaq1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment

I am giving the article a B-class rank on accounbt fo the fact that it does meet the critera for B-class insofar as I can tell, but I still find the article to be POVish in places. I would strongly recommend a furth round of tone-downing before advancing the article any further. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

At the request of Bless sins, these are some suggests for improvement. These are split into two sections, in general and specific. The in general section gives overall ideas as to how the article may be improved, the specific section sites actual words, sentences and paragraphs that may need reformatting for specified after the entry. Note that these are suggests, and as such may be ignored; I make them only in an effort to help improve the article. If these come across as rude or offensive then I apologize, as I am new to editing religious based articles and am not familiar enough with the Islamic religion to know how to correctly spell and address religiously important people, places, things, and ideas.

In General

  • Avoid the word “Pagan”, it lends the impression of having an Islamic point of view and therefore suggests a violation of NPOV policy
  • Words like “Banu Qurayza” need some sort of parenthetical note or something to briefly elaborate on what they are. Granted, there is a link, but for those of us interested only in the current article it would be nice to have an on hand explanation. It doesn’t have to be elaborate; something like (tribe leader) or (head preist) or something to that effect would do just fine.
  • If your dates are “month day, year” or “day month year” then you can link the entire date like this: Month day year or day month year. In the event that you lack the exact day month and year of the event, do not link it.
  • Consider creating an article on “battle of wits”, it seems like an interesting subject.
  • Pay attention to the tense in the article, it switches between the past tense and present tense at times and that needs to be fixed.
  • Make sure your notes are correctly configured. To me they seem iffy, I would suggest getting a more professional opinion from User:SandyGeorgia, who is well versed in this area.

Specifically

  • ”The Battle of the Trench (Arabic غزوة الخندق), starting on 31 March 627, was the fortnight long siege of Medina by pagan Arab and Jewish confederates.” This seems awkwardly phrased when compared to other articles; I would reword it to read "The Battle of the Trench (Arabic غزوة الخندق) was a fortnight long siege of Medina by Arab and Jewish confederates beginning on 31 March 627"
  • ”’’The defenders of Medina, mainly Muslims and led by the prophet Muhammad, dug a trench north of the city.’’” This sentence is a do nothing sentence, it ought to be combined with another sentence or removed altogether.
  • ”’’Hoping to make several attacks at once, the confederates persuaded the Banu Qurayza to attack the city from the south. However, Muhammad's diplomacy derailed the negotiations, and broke up the confederacy against him.’’” This is another case of weird sentences, consider combining them.
  • ”’’The supreme effort by the Arabs to annihilate Islam had failed, and the faith remained as influential as ever.’’” This sounds to pro-islam, how about something like “Arab efforts to eliminate Islamic influence in the region failed, and Islam remained an influetial force in the region”
  • ”’’As a consequence, the Qurayza were besieged, and upon unconditional surrender, the men were executed and the women and children captured. The Meccans had lost their trade and much of their prestige.’’” Who did the besieging, who surrendered, and why did the Meccans lose much of their prestige?
  • In the section “name” you have the line ”’’The battle is also referred to it as Battle of Confederates (Arabic غزوة الاحزاب).’’” There is no need to have the word “it” in the sentence, I would suggest removing the word “it” and putting the word “the” in between the words “as” and “Battle”.
  • In the section “Background” you have the line ”’’In April 626 Muhammad raised a force of 300 men and 10 horses to meet the pagan Quraysh army of 1,000 at Badr, where the latter had threatened to attack.’’” Who were the Quraysh? Do we have an article on them? If we do then you should link to the tribe, otherwise I would consider creating an article for the tribe.
  • In the same section you have the line “’’ The small Muslim triumphantly defeated the mighty military force of the Quraysh.’’” “Small” and “Triumphantly” are weasel words, I would suggest removing them. I would also place the word “force” after the word “Muslim”, the way this reads now, it sounds like on guy went up against a force of Quraysh warriors, and I do not think that to be the case.
  • In the same section you have the line ”’’Muhammad supposedly, according to some Western views, also tried to break up many confederacies against Muslims. Nevertheless, he was unable to prevent the Meccan one.’’” This reads very ackwardly. I would reword it read “According to some western views, Muhammad tried to break up many anti-Muslim confederacies, but failed to prevent the Meccan confederacy from rising up against the Medinan Muslims”
  • ”’’ Like the battle of Badr, where the Muslims surrounded the wells, and the battle of Uhud, where the Muslims made strategic use of the hill, this time too they would employ a creative military strategy.’’” Again, this reads ackwardly; I would reconfigure the sentence to read something like “As with the battle of Badr and the Battle of Uhud, the Muslim warriors used unconventional methodes against their opponents <ref>At the battle of Badr, the muslim warriors surrounded the wellsm depriving their oppenents of water. At the battle of Uhud, Muslim warriors made strategic use of the hills to achieve victory</ref>” Also, I would link to the battle of Badr, if the article exists.
  • In the section “The Confederates” you have started the first sentence off with “Around new year 627”. This seems odd to me, is it the traditional new year (January 1st), and if so why not use January 1st?
  • In the same section you have the lines “’’ The bulk of the Confederate armies were gathered by the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, lead by Abu Sufyan, who fielded 4,000 foot soldiers. In addition to that they had 300 horsemen, and 1,000-1,500 men on camels.’’” I would combine the two senteces like such: “The bulk of the Confederate armies were gathered by the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, lead by Abu Sufyan, who fielded 4,000 foot soldiers, 300 horsemen, and 1,000-1,500 men on camels.”
  • In the same section you have the line “’’ They bribed the Banu Ghatafan with half their date harvest’’”. What is a date harvest, and is it any different than regular harvest?
  • In the same section is the line “’’Bani Asad also agreed to join them lead by Tuleha Asadi’’”. This sentence is too short, and needs to be expanded on, combined, or removed. Also who was Bani Asad?
  • In the same section you have the line “’’According to plan…’’” which to me sounds awkward; I would reword that to read “In accordance with the plan…” since I assume there was only one plan.
  • In the section “Muslim Defense” is the line “’’ Outnumbered, however, the Muslims opted to engage in a defensive battle by establishing deep trenches to act as a barrier along the northern front.’’” I would suggest rewording this to read “Ultimately the outnumbered Muslims opted to engage in a defensive battle by establishing deep trenches to act as a barrier along the north front.”
  • In the same section are lines “’’ The digging of the ditch coincided with a near-famine in Medina. Women and children were moved to the inner parts of the city. Further the Medians harvested all their crops early, so the Confederate armies would have to rely on their own food reserves.’’” Those first two sentences are too short, they need to be expanded on, combined, or removed. The last sentence is awkwardly worded, I would consider removing the word “Further” and adding either the word “also” or the word “had” between the words “Medians” and “harvested”.
  • In the same section are the sentences “’’ Muhammad established headquarter at the hillock of Sala' and the army was arrayed there. This position would give Muslims an advantage if the enemy crossed the trench’’” These could be combined by removing the period and replacing it with a semi-colon.
  • In the same section is the line “’’The final army that would defend the city from the invasion, consisting of 3,000 men, included practically all of the inhabitants of Medina over the of 15, except the Banu Qurayza (the Qurayzah did, however, supply Muslims with some instruments for digging the trench).’’” This reads ackwardly, I would suggest rewording to read “The final army that would defend the city from the invasion consisted of 3,000 men and included almost all of the inhabitants of Medina over the age of 15, except the Banu Qurayza (the Qurayzah did, however, supply Muslims with some instruments for digging the trench).”
  • In the section “The Siege” are the lines “The Confederates were wholly unprepared to deal with the trench. Sieges were hitherto unknown in Arabia.” I would reverse the order of the sentence to read “Sieges were hitherto unknown in Arabia; as a result, the arriving confederates were unprepared to deal with the trenches dug by the Muslims.”
  • In the same section are the lines “The Confederates tried to hurl bodies of horsemen in hopes of forcing a passage. But the Medinans entrenched rigidly prevented such a crossing” Both of these sentence are too short and need to be expanded upon, combined, or removed. These two sentences could be combined by replacing the period from the first sentence with a comma.
  • In the same section is the line “’’ Faced with this situation the Confederates tried to make several attacks at once, especially by trying to persuade the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza to attack the Muslims from the south.’’” I would remove the word “especially” and replace it with “in particular”.
  • In the same section are the lines “’’ But Akhtab managed to enter and persuade them that the Muslims would surely be overwhelmed if they opened a second front against them. Akhtab tore into pieces the agreement between the Qurayza and Muhammad.’’” This reads ackwardly, I would suggest rewording it to read “Akhtab managed to enter and persuade them that the Muslims would surely be overwhelmed if they opened a second front against them, and as a reult Akhtab tore the agreement between the Qurayza and Muhammad into pieces.”
  • In the same section are the lines “’’The leaders found that indeed the pact had been renounced. The leaders tried, in vain, of convincing the Qurayza to revert, reminding them of the fates of Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa.’’” This sounds akward, I would reword it to read “The leaders found that the pact had indeed been renounced, and tried in vain to convincing the Qurayza to revert by reminding them of the fates of Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa.”
  • In the section “Crisis in Medina” are the lines “’’ Despite Muhammad's attempt to hide his knowledge of the activities of Banu Qurayza they became known. Rumor spread of a massive assault on the city of Medina from Qurayza's side designed to capture the defenders' families. This severely demoralized the Medinans.’’” This sounds ackward, I would suggest rewording this to read “Muhammad attempted to hide his knowledge of the activities of Banu Qurayza; however, rumor soon spread of a massive assault on the city of Medina from Qurayza's side designed to capture the defenders' families which severely demoralized the Medinans.”
  • In the section “Muslim response” you have the line “’’Muhammad asked him to break up the Confederacy.’’” This sentence is to short, it needs to be combined, expanded on, or removed from the article.
  • In the section “’’Collapse of the Confederacy” are the lines “The lack of success dashed their hopes,’’” and “’’The provisions of the Confederate armies were running out. Horses and camels were dying out of hunger and wounds. For days the weather had been exceptionally cold and wet. Violent winds blew out the camp fires, taking away from the Confederate army their source of heat.’’” These sentences are too short, and need to be expanded on, combined, or removed from the article.
  • All the sentences in the section “Implications” are too short, and need to be expanded on, combined, or (as a last resort) removed.

-- TomStar81 (Talk) 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

The Qurayza were one of the major aspects during the siege. Please see sections: Battle_of_the_Trench#Banu_Qurayza, Battle_of_the_Trench#Crisis_in_Medina, Battle_of_the_Trench#Muslim_response and Battle_of_the_Trench#Collapse_of_the_Confederacy for the tribe's role in the battle.

Please don't deny this.Bless sins (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I found the article is very good and I want to nominate it as a good article. What's your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Trench/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I am passing this article as it meets all of the GA criteria, as listed above. There were some small issues that I've fixed myself.

Comments
  • "The Confederates" section seems disjointed - perhaps the paragraphs of 1-2 sentences could be merged?
  • The external links should probably be given titles so people know what they are.

Naerii 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The last sentence of the current lead section talks about Meccans; yet previously, there is no mention of them! I assume it refers to the Quraysh a well-known Meccan tribe), but this should be incorporated into the lead. MP (talk•contribs) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template sources

This edit[1] seems legitimate if sources can be found that differentiate Muslims amongst these tribes during the battle of the trench. In other words, the sources should make this distinction between the Muslim camp.

Note I'm not doubting the existence of Muhajirun etc. but I think that by this time Ansar and Muhajirun had been well integrated into one community. If I'm wrong please find sources that make the distinction. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the reason we give so many details about confederates is because we actually have figures about the strength of each of the tribes, and its leader.
I haven't seen any figures about the strength of the Ansar and Muhajirun, nor have I seen them having separate leaders.Bless sins (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Reb!

Can somebody transliterate الاحزاب? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Substantiation that Muhammad took one woman for himself

"Wife" may not be technically correct. "Concubine" may be closer. The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: "Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you." So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)

This is not substanciated in the least bit. I have read the biography of Muhamad and I haven't heard of it until now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.212.161 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Defense section

I have deleted a large part of this section because most of its assertions are not cited, and its only citation is to the Qur'an, whose use as a reliable and unbiased source for historical events is of dubious concordance with Wikipedia's standards on sources. This part of the section was also improperly formatted, does not contain a neutral point of view (using terms like "hypocrites" as if they were historical descriptors) and describing as though it were a matter of fact what was going on inside the minds of participants in this battle. I suggestion that this text remain removed until a more formalized means of introducing the Qur'an's telling of this story can be introduced, perhaps in a new section, or that the Qur'an's telling of this story be omitted entirely. Barring serious objections, I tend toward the latter alternative, because of the aforementioned difficulty in using the Qur'an as a historical source vis-a-vis Wikipedia's standards on historical sources. 76.119.208.81 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem?

Str1977 why do you insist on having a "POV" tag in the article?Bless sins (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And you insist on (illegally!!!, raising the question whether your edits are actually vandalism) censoring it out all the while pushing your filthy whitewashing back in, the women and children were not only captured (all BQs were on their surrender) but enslaved, if you can bring yourself to realise the difference. Ramadan's statement was still in in my version and thus the tag is required.

Then, get it into your head that the mediation is about the BQ article, not this one here. You cannot use the mediation (the result of which you never formally accepted) as a basis for your edits here, especially if you do not implement it in full.

Also, I'd like to know what the ominous facts are that I am supposedly hiding? I did not delete any "facts".

Also, it is nonsensical to include a Watt (and once again: his name is either William Montgomery Watt or simply Watt) comment in such a manner. It is endorsing him.

Finally, the "see also" section contains things that are not really related to this article. Include them into the text or leave them. Str1977 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What am I "censoring" out?
Ok, so you are now going to push a POV, that you were unable to push on Banu Qurayza, here? The results of mediation may not be binding, but they indicate where consensus lies. If not, I'll gladly introduce the word "execution" with 19 sources. (Trust me, you don't want that dispute all over again).
"Ramadan's statement was still in in my version" Why does that require a tag? It's one the most reliable sources in the article.
Your deleting the venues where the battle took place, the parties in the battle and the casualties from the infobox.
Watt points out some facts that show the uniqueness of this battle and its nature. The fact is that this battle was a "battle of wits". The defenders eventually broke up the confederacy using their minds not their swords. Very few fighting actually happened. Even with Banu Qurayza, they surrendered unconditionally, thus no fighting. It explains why only 10-20 people were killed when an army of 10,000 approached and army of 3,000 with the intent of destroying the latter.
The see also section's purpose is to link to aspects that have not been talked about in the article. (WP:ALSO says "it should not repeat links already present in the article.")Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
BS, could you please quit with your insulting, condescending and arrogant attitude?
  • Your were repeatedly removing a tag I placed in direct violation of wikirules. You were censoring the fact some things in this article are controversial.
  • No, I am only telling you that you cannot claim the mediation result for this article here. Your comments are clearly in bad faith. You know that I was part of the compromise on mediation (and more than you were) - I have accepted the compromise. You however still want to sneak in the idea that Muhammad was lenient when he butchered the Jews who had it coming anyway.
  • No, you Muslim brotherhood friend Ramadan is not "one of the most reliable sources" at all.
  • My point was that the battle of the trench is something different than the siege of the BQ, hence I removed those parts pertaining to the latter. This is supported by the Muhammad's campaign template (that somehow disappeared from here and was replaced by a nonsensical succession box). BTW, you messed up the casualties box. And because of this separation I also found aftermath better - however, I do not actually have anything against a "siege of BQ" section as long as it is a) short, b) NPOV.
  • I have no problem with Watt's comment (as you again try to imply in bad faith) but with that silly way of including it on the side. Giving him a special place is endorsing his view.
  • I see no reason to link to "treason" or "Islamic jurisprudence" or whatever. "Trench warfare" has at least some justification to it.
Str1977 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I only see you making personal attacks. I've quite polite (polite enough to not call you "arrogant").
  • WP:CENSOR applies to content not tags.
  • "I have accepted the compromise", then why are you so opposed to "demise"?
  • Oxford University Press, which printed Ramadan's book, is the most reliable source I see here. Feel free to point out any other more reliable source (except Watt, who I know is more reliable than Ramadan), or any other potential source.
  • According to sources, they are treated as part of the same conflict. Do you disagree that 600-700 was number of Qurayza killed?
  • Please see Holocaust#Early_measures_in_Poland. There, put to the left side, is what I find an ugly and disgusting view (I'm sure you'll agree). God forbid that we should ever endorse such a thing. But we give it prominence as it is a notable and significant view.
  • All of the prophet Muhammad's battles are relevant to Islamic military jurisprudence, as later Muslims took his example to develop ideal conduct in warfare. Regarding "treason", do you agree or disagree that this was, atleast, one of the accusations made against Qurayza?Bless sins (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing polite in your behaviour.
Deleting a POV tag placed by another editor immediately afterwards is among the worst sins you can bless on WP. It hides the fact that there is disagreement, especially if done by the one who inserted the disputed passages. And no, "censoring" is an English word, not limited by WP:CENSOR to which I never referred.
OUP is no source but a publisher. They publish a lot of writers. Doesn't change the fact that Ramadan is an Islamist (at least).
BS, don't pretend. You know I do not disagree about the numbers. But I am willing to drop the issue and include the BQ into this battle if you start behaving in a cooperative manner.
If these things are relevant, include them into the article. If not, then leave them. Maybe (since the BQ are on topic) we should link to List of massacres, massacre, genocide and other "niceties". Str1977 (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
In wikipedia, generally "censor" is an allusion to WP:CENSOR (and other relevant wiki policies). In any case, do not that I'm not bound here by any laws except the laws of wikipedia (and the laws of God, but that doesn't concern you). Thus, if I'm not violating wiki-rules on censorship then users shouldn't have grounds for complaint.
According to WP:V, a source can be reliable if its publisher is reliable. See . Also WP:V explicitly says "".
Ok, one less problem between us. We're making progress.
OK, I see what you're saying. Islamic military jurisprudence is definitely relevant.Bless sins (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to make this proposal under which no side will get all they want:

  • I will accept the inclusion of the siege of the BQ in this article, including the casualties in the info box.
  • The succession box has to go unless it is included in all these battles under the name of "battles of Muhammad", Muslim battles did not stop in 632.
  • The Siege of the BQ section is restricted to the bare facts, with a main-article link to the BQ article.
  • the "see also" elements in dispute are included in to the text if possible.

Str1977 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The succession box's discussion is not specific to this article, as it should be used, if it exists, in other articles as well. From what I see, succession boxes are common, but that discussion has to happen at another venue.
I don't see why facts related to military can't be included? The article size is actually quite small, and there's room for more information. Ofcourse religious facts, would be a bit irrelevant.Bless sins (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The succession box is designed for the succession of rulers, not for a biography of a man nor for a succession of events. And we already have the "campaigns" template for the latter purpose.
What do you mean by "facts related to military"?
I also do not approve of your blind reverting my entire edits:
  • I already told you about words like "captured" (which is "taken captive", not "enslaved")
  • "Sieges were hitherto unknown in Arabia" is dubious as there have been sieges in Medina before. Probably toning down the statement (something like "sieges were uncommon") will do the trick.
  • Please do not deleted the Heck page numbers or any other bibliographical information.
  • Why does the Watt comment needs to be placed outside the main text?
  • I removed the second part of the BQ section because it is this part that creates the problem. Everything is well covered in the BQ article (to which I linked). The main thrust of the article should definitely be about the Trench. And all the major facts about the BQ siege etc. are included.
Str1977 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thus, take your concerns somewhere else (the Islam portal, if you're not sure). At the moment I won't oppose you in taking of the box.
Exactly that. So anything that has to do with the military nature of the siege should be included. Religious discussions (such as those about the Qur'an and Torah) best be avoided.
What's wrong with "captured"?
It's attributed to Watt. What Watt means by siege is the use of siege weaponry to scale the enemy's defenses. I don't know if Arabs had ever used siege weapons before.
Sure.
As I said already, it helps capture the essence of the entire battle in a few words. It is sourced to the most reliable source on the article (infact, the most reliable source I have seen on the subject). There are other aticles who make use of such quotations as well. As I showed you already, this does not mean we are endorsing Watt's opinions.
Please don't remove sourced content. The article is quite short and there are no size problems.Bless sins (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I find this([2]) ridiculous. In the lead, you basically remove a reference to Watt. After removing the reference you tag the paragraph with a fact tag as if it is unsourced. But you conveniently, forget that you are the one who made the paragraph unsourced by removing the source from the paragraph.Bless sins (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello BS,
  • I must say that "Exactly that. So anything that has to do with the military nature of the siege should be included." is not an answer to my question. You stated that I opposed the inclusion of such things. In fact, I don't. But I don't need a dictionary definition but information as to what you are referring to specifically.
  • "captured" means taken captive - all the BQ were captured at their surrender and some were killed and some enslaved.
  • "It's attributed to Watt. What Watt means by siege is the use of siege weaponry to scale the enemy's defenses. I don't know if Arabs had ever used siege weapons before."
    Well, if he means such specifics we can include the specifics. But to state "siege was unknown" is just simply wrong.
  • Unfortunately, such a capturing in essence is not easy to reconcile with NPOV.
  • I have explained to you already why I removed the latter part of the BQ section (if you are referring to this, it is hard to tell by your talking in general principles) - it is no concern of size.
  • "In the lead, you basically remove a reference to Watt. After removing the reference you tag the paragraph with a fact tag as if it is unsourced." - no, the fact tag only applies to the "sieges were unknown" which in this form is patently wrong. Str1977 (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You have removed information from the "Siege of the Banu Qurayza" section that was military related.
  • The fact is that we have a reliable source saying it, thus we include it. If you have a reliable source contradicting Watt, then we can include it as well.
  • If there's no concern of size, then why are you removing it?
  • This is what it says in the lead "The siege was a "battle of wits", in which Muslims diplomatically overcame their opponents with very few casualties. Efforts to eliminate Muslims failed, and Islam became influential in the region. As a consequence, the Muslims besieged the Qurayza, and upon the latter's unconditional surrender, all men were killed, while women and children were enslaved. The defeat also caused the Meccans to lose their trade and much of their prestige.[citation needed]" Yet in my version, instead of a citation needed, there was a source. But you and Yahel remove it and replace it with a fact tag. How can you ask for a source, after you, yourself have removed it? The only thing worse than making a wrong edit is not acknowledging that you did something wrong.Bless sins (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not removed information from the "Siege of the Banu Qurayza" section that was military related. What I have removed was how this event was considered by different writers because it was heavily POV. A proper treatment is in the BQ article We could of course include this all here as well but this would require a lot of work right now. "If there's no concern of size, then why are you removing it?" For reasons of POV.
  • "The fact is that we have a reliable source saying it, thus we include it. If you have a reliable source contradicting Watt, then we can include it as well." What do you mean. Could you please post in a manner so that your point would be clear. I did not remove any Watt quote. And no, we are not obliged to copy quotes from books. Otherwise we would have to quote entire books. Did you chose that quote from a book?
  • I see now that there is a ref removed in the intro (though your comments didn't help much to find it, there is another "battle of wits" comment in the article that is properly sourced in both versions). I did not realize this before as you added a ref that wasn't there when I fact tagged the passage. I errouneously reverted that as well when dealing with your constant "rv back to me" actions. If you had just placed the ref there I would have noticed it. I certainly take exception to your charge that I removed the source when it wasn't there to begin with. Str1977 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is military related. It deals with the concerns of POWs Muhammad had. Prisoners of war" deal with the military, no? The author also cites Muhammad's previous battles, are his battles not "military related"? WP:NPOV says we present all significant views. It does not say we remove significant views, esp. those sourced to the most reliable of sources.
I mean what I post. I, indeed, chose the quote from the book. It is the only quote in the article (correct me if I'm wrong). It is a very significant quote, as I've already explained to you.
"Wasn't there to begin with"? One can clearly see it in this version. Since then you removed the source multiple times. You have also not made any attempt to correct your mistake.Bless sins (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting to the infobox, you changed "Muslims" to "Medina" and removed that they were battling the Quarish. Then you removed the link to Islamic military jurisprudence. Why did you do this? Yahel Guhan 07:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the defendants were not just the Muslims, but all the inhabitants of Medina (except the Qurayza). This is sourced to Montgomery Watt. The attackers, were not just the Quraysh, but a confederation of many tribes. See Battle_of_the_Trench#The_Confederates for details.
BTW, I didn't remove the link to Islamic military jurisprudence - you did.[3]
Bless sins (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
BS has a point as to the defenders of the town.
It was me who removed the link to Islamic military jurisprudence because thus far a reason for it has not been established. If there is a link, why not integrate into the text? Str1977 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've already said this before. The "See also" section is for links that are not integrated in the article (WP:ALSO says "it should not repeat links already present in the article").Bless sins (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You still have not provided any reasoning whatsoever as to why these links should be included. We do not include just any links. I could include this link as well.
Confederates do not need to be put into quotes. I can't guess how this came into your mind.
Also, do not remove fact tags without solving the problem. Str1977 (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have. On 03:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I wrote "All of the prophet Muhammad's battles are relevant to Islamic military jurisprudence, as later Muslims took his example to develop ideal conduct in warfare. Regarding "treason", do you agree or disagree that this was, atleast, one of the accusations made against Qurayza?" Perhaps we can link Robbie Williams, but can you connect him to the battle?
Well confederates is a term given to a specific people in this context. It doesn't really matter to me either way at this point.
Please don't remove sources and add fact tags. I've told you already multiple times to stop this.Bless sins (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop insulting me and my intelligence by claiming things that have already been explained. Str1977 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thus, when you can longer respond rationally back, you resort to meaningless arguments of "insulting your intelligence".Bless sins (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey BS, it was you repeatedly talked about my "removing sources and add fact tags" without poiting me directly to the problematic passage. Now I that I have found it (not by your help) and have rectified my mistake you still keep on bringing this up. Why?
Maybe because YOU are still removing a fact tag, one that has never seen a source. And you are still ignoring the problem with the passage.
Regarding what you wrote above: justify the see also links. Why are these links relevant to this article (not: why is this article relevant to the link). I don't understand your passage about treason.
Str1977 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Everything in the article is sourced. What is that that is not sourced? You apparently put a fact tag to a sentence that is sourced to Watt.
Regarding the see also links: I just justified them (in my previous post)! You keep on asking me to justify, without responding to my already existing justification.
My justification was in plain English, what exactly don't you understand about it?Bless sins (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There was a sentence claiming that "sieges were unknown in Arabia", which is plainly rubbish.
No, you didn't justify them as you went the wrong way around (by reading my previous posting you should see this).
I understand the words but I do not understand for what reason you bring them up. Where do I dispute "treason"? Str1977 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok so a statement sourced to the Oxford University Press and an eminent scholar is "plain rubbish"? Honestly, Str1977, if you reject even Watt, who do you accept as a reliable source, besides yourself? Please answer this question, because it has been troubling me for a while.
You can respond back to my argument, perhaps by arguing that there are flaws in my argument, that I don't understand policy etc. But when you refuse to acknowledge that I have written something (even though you disagree with it), I really can't do much about it.Bless sins (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you never sources the sentence to anyone. Secondly, yes to say that "sieges were unknown in Arabia" is plain rubbish even if Watt said it (which is not established) as you very well know that Muhammad besieged the Qunayqa abd the Nadir before the Battle of the Trench. That's like saying Atomic Bombs were unknown on Earth in 1950. If you must parrot any hyperbole of Watt (if he indeed said this which you have in no way established) that is your problem, not mine. Str1977 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence, infact the whole paragraph, is sourced to Watt. Look at the reference near the end of the paragraph. Watt says "Sieges were unkown in Arabian warfare." Because Watt is a reliable source, we say what he says. Because you are not a reliable source (nor am I), we don't say what you say. If you've got a problem with WP:V and WP:NOR, which oblige us to depend on verifiability not truth, then go deal with them. As along as those policies exist, I'll abide by them.Bless sins (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
So again we are down to your parroting Watt. You are not abiding by policies as there is no policy that requires us to parrot a source, even if it were the most reliable in the world. We do not need to quote if such a verbatim quote would introduce a clearly wrong statement.
Ah, and please do not revert with dishonest edit summaries. You did a blanket revert, not just one about "siege details". Str1977 (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding sieges being unkown, we are not "parroting Watt". I have rephrased what Watt says, so there is no direct quote. (A parrot on the other hand repeats phonetically the sound it hears.) If what you mean is that I'm presenting the same information as Watt does, then it is true. I'm adding no information of my own, nor performing any analysis of Watt says.
Regarding the cquote, which I don't think you're talking about, the only difference in our posiitons is whether it should be formatted as cquote, or just normal quotation marks. (for this I have provided you with precedence that such quotes indeed exist).
Finally you are removing sourced content in the siege of Banu Qurayza section.Bless sins (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is how the parrot speaks. But what I meant is not necessarily repeating the words verbatim but repeating the content very closely WITHOUT REGARD to anything else. IMHO Watt is to be taken literally here but speaking in hyperbole. Of course, sieges were a new thing and therefore his argument stands. Only, we shouldn't repeat the hyperbole. In any case, since you already rephrased him, we might as well rephrase him in such way as to not spread false information.
"Finally you are removing sourced content in the siege of Banu Qurayza" ... and I told you my reasoning. If you disagree that's fine but don't say you are reverting siege details when you simply reverting everything. Str1977 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"In any case, since you already rephrased him," I rephrased him to be more close to his original words. Do you agree with the rephrasal?

The reasoing you have provided for removing the content is that the content is covered in another article. While that is true (though the other is not stable) there's nothing wrong with covering it here as well. This is article is still quite small, with quite a bit of room to spare.

My edit summary only contains the highlight of my edit, something that is particularly critical (you may know that edit summaries have a chracter limit). The edit summary is not meant to account for every change.Bless sins (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: you rephrased Watt's words to make it closer to his original words? Doesn't make sense to me. In any case, could you respond to the underlying problem that sieges are supposedly "unknown" when in fact Muhammad had already besieged two tribes? Str1977 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> You know it'd be a lot easier if you simply go and read Watt for yourself.
In response to the "underlying problem", I'll provide my personal interpretation on your talk page. Please note that that is only my personal view (which doesn't belong in wikipedia), not Watt's view (which does belong in wikipedia). Bless sins (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, s-sins, I read your "personal view" but it doesn't make sense to me. Sieges are sieges, no matter who has the advantage.
Contrary to your view, not every burp of Watt belongs into WP - our priority is writing a good, informative, accurate, neutral article. Your inclusion of Watt in this matter does not help but burt the article's quality. Str1977 (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well if you disagree with my personal view then find another personal view that reconciles Watt with other claims you hold, because Watt will not be deelted out of the article. Watt is a reliable source, and I will not allow your OR to censor parts of material sourced to him out.
Also, you haven't responded completely to my comment on 04:19, 18 February 2008, the part that begins : "The reasoing you have provided for removing the content is that the content..."Bless sins (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop fighting strawmen. Nobody wants to deelt or delete Watt out of the article. Only I will not allow your parrot-like attitude to affect the article in a negative way. There are way of including Watt that do not spread false impressions. My approach is one, another would be to simply remove the statement about unknown or uncommon and proceed with the lack of preparation on the besiegers part.
I will not walk down your line of reasonings about when a siege is not a siege.
As for your question, I have already explained my point. Sure we could also cover it here but that would take much more than three lines. Your three lines are a POV representation of the issue and this is why I removed them. Str1977 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"There are way of including Watt that do not spread false impressions." Who says its false? Oh right, a wikipedian who is not a scholar but pretends to posess the knowlege of one.
The statement "Nobody wants to deelt or delete Watt out of the article" and "would be to simply remove the statement" seem to contradict each other. Do you wish to remove the statement or not?
You are free to add more than three lines - as long as the content is relevant to the battle (or other battles of the prophet).Bless sins (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
BS, please stop it. We cannot include the claim that "sieges were unknwon in Arabia" when they the battle was just preceded by two sieges. That's illogical.
No, I do not want to remove Watt and hence I worded the passage so that it makes sense.
And there is no contradiction as I never proposed to remove everything Watt says in this article. You - typically, I am afraid - turn this into a battle of everything or nothing. My comment "simply remove" was merely directed towards the "unknown in Arabia" phrase. Str1977 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying that Watt is illogical? You distorted the passage and it no longer says what Watt says in his book. Your removal of content sourced to Watt, coupled with your removal of content sourced to Ramadan, is turning into censorship.Bless sins (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
       uh yeah, just read this thread and I wanted to point out that the quraysh were not accustomed to sieges , as they preffered open warfare and considered it cowardice to hide rather than fight !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.36.169 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

pov

Mekkan pagans does not equate with mekkans.

And hypocrits does not equate with non-Muslims.

--Striver 11:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't use labels such as hypocrits and pagans here. We are supposed to make the tone of the articles as disinterested as possible. -- Karl Meier 16:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Historically, the word munafiq = hypocrite, was actually used by the people at that time for the many in Mediana who converted only in name and actually supported the Meccen cause. So it is not POV.

Have to agree with Karl Meier on this point, but I wouldn't use 'disinterested', more , 'neutral'. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Use of the term "pagan" is a derogatory term meant as a value judgement of someone. It's ancient meaning - along with hypocrite - would not be the same as the modern meaning. Encyclopaedia's are intended to be judgement-free by their very nature... Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
   * 2.1 Muhammad Murders And Enslaves Helpless Banu Qurayza Captives

Sounds kinda out of the NPOV we aim for there doesn't it? --DoomsElf 15:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC) 

   * On the surface, it could. But consider this:

1. Was Muhammad directly involved?

2. Were 600-900 summarily executed, many by him personally? Is this murder?

3. Were those not executed taken as slaves and sold into slavery?

4. Were these people all Helpless? Were they Captives, having unconditionally surrendered to Muhammad?

This all happened a long time ago. Certainly all records could be disputed--including the rest of the article--and are open to interpretation, including Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, and the Qur'an. But if you think those two source documents answer these questions in the affirmative, one would have to accept this title as both factual and accurate and therefore neutral.

Lava?

On the map it says lava, someone care to explain what lava means? (Does it mean hot magma? and why would there be magma on the field of battle?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it means old, cooled lava, but I can't be sure. See Medina#Geography. It mentions the last eruption in the area being in the 13th century. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The word "Jew"

Is there a particular reason why this word needs to be repeated so many times in this article in association with the Banu Nadir? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: Probably someone with antisemitic feelings. Feel free to shorten it to simply "Banu Nadir", considering that it basically is a tautology. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of mentions of "Jew" from 15 to 8. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Trench. 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) 23:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Hillcock"

The top image contains a "hillcock". I hope this is just a typo, rather than vandalism. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the top map, since no one seems to have taken you seriously. --StephanNaro (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of map?

I'm guessing they didn't have sattelite imagery back when they invented this story based on the story of the Hephthalite invasion of the Sassanian(?) Empire some centuries earlier as mentioned by Tom Holland in In the Shadow of the Sword? The maps sure don't look terribly much like the territory, but any mention of that would be OR? --StephanNaro (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Battle of the Trench

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of the Trench's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Misri; Sirah Sahabah: Zubair bin Awwam":

  • From Gabriel: al-Misri, Mahmud (2015). Sahabat-Sahabat Rasulullah vol 1: Zubair bin Awwam [Companion of the Prophet vol 1: Zubair bin Awwam] (in Indonesian and Arabic). Pustaka Ibnu Katsir. p. Shaja'ah Zubayr ibn al-Awwam Radhiyallahu anh (bravery of Zubayr ibn al-Awwam; by Mahmud al-Misri [ar]; official Book review by Basalamah; quoting various supplementary sources such as Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Siyar A'lam Nubala, Al-Tirmidhi, Prophetic biography of Ibn Hisham, etc. ISBN 9789791294386. Retrieved 6 November 2021.
  • From Zubayr ibn al-Awwam: al-Misri (2015, p. Zubayr ibn Awwam chapter)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Explanation for result in infobox

@Kaalakaa::

You changed the result to Quraysh victory using Brockopp page 9 and Lapidus page 42.

These sources state:

  • "The battles with the Meccans continued; some of these were barely survived by the Muslims (Uhud in 3/625), and others were a draw (Battle of the Trench in 5/627)." -- The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad, Jonathan E. Brockopp, page 9.
  • "..who twice attacked Muhammad and Medina - first at the Battle of Uhud (625) and then at the Battle of the Ditch (627). The former was a defeat for Muhammad and the latter was a stalemate." --Islamic Societies to the Nineteenth Century: A Global History, Ira M. Lapidus, page 42.

Care to explain? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Kansas Bear. Thanks for letting me know. I mistakenly reverted to the @Aura G666's version, thinking that this article was Battle of Uhud. In my revision that I made myself, I wrote the result as stalemate. Also here I added more source, and here too. Your current revision is correct. Thank you. Kaalakaa (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Casualties misrepresent the source and are clearly incorrect

For one, if we are to believe that the substance of the article is accurate (which I believe is also based on mythic-religious sources), the casualty figure is plainly and objectively widely inaccurate. If a pitched battle between armies, according to this article, that numbered collectively 10,500-13,500 soldiers, including sieges of multiple cities, and trench warfare for every citizen of Medina over 14, resulted in about 11 casualties, than everyone was playing with foam fingers. It just looks goofy for one of the foundational events of Islam to use such blatantly inaccurate statistics and I think insulting to Muslims and intelligent people. No insult to the writer of it, but I believe we should simply change the stat to "unknown," unless in the unlikely event a more exacting stat can be provided for casualty tolls.

I checked the source, the attacks include several Meccan "assaults by night" (Watt, 167) and several assaults by the river that culminated in the leaders breaking (168). I could list these in detail, but you get the idea. Kingfisher2014 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

talk about islam

nothing 2001:8F8:1D03:55D3:7827:4E6B:3101:2100 (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Reason for result to be called stalemate?

The Infobox states that the battle was a stalemate and there are only two sources that hold this opinion. However other sources such as The History of al-Ṭabarī Vol. 8: The Victory of Islam: Muhammad at Medina AD 626-630/AH 5-8 Michael Fishbein State University of New York Press, 2015 seem to state that the battle was a victory for the Muslims Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Even though the 2 sources state it was a stalemate, nowhere does the article state the result to be a stalemate. If we just use rational thinking the result is the following: the siege of Medina was a failure for the Quraysh and the Muslims successfully invaded the Banu Qurayza. This is clearly a Muslim victory. Even the language of the article seems to state so Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but on Wikipedia, we only accept analyses of reliable sources, not analyses by editors. Because that would be original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. Also, you cannot override material sourced from two Cambridge University Press publications with conflicting material from a book published by obscure non-academic publishers like Pen and Sword. — Kaalakaa (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
However even if other sources call it a stalemate (despite it actually not being a stalemate), in articles such as the Siege of Mecca (683) it has simply been written that the besieging army withdrew. The same can be done with this article Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Every reliable source except the 2 stated in the result indicate that the siege was a Muslim victory. This includes books by professors such as 1. Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The Battle of Khandaq part of that book was written by Leon Volfovsky and, as far as I know, he was not a professor at that time but an undergraduate. [4] — Kaalakaa (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Also the article itself states that "During the night the Confederate armies withdrew, and by morning the ground was cleared of all enemy forces".In other articles defending side is the victor if the besieging side withdraws Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The withdrawal of a force does not mean they are defeated. I have partially restored the withdrawal part in the infobox. — Kaalakaa (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Fine by me Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Trench/Archive_1&oldid=1264591141"