Talk:Battle of the Trench

message: :
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for result in infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casualties misrepresent the source and are clearly incorrect 

message: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.   — Kaalakaa (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fine by me Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for result to be called stalemate? 

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

message: Ikrima ibn Abi Jahl was a leading commander along with Abd Al Al Wad according to his own page. فضائل الصحابة (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to his own page" because you added it yourself without citing any sources. Misleading statement aside, other Wikipedia articles don't count as sources. If the information is supported, add citations to reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn’t add anything onto the page Amr ibn Abd al-Wud, stop involving yourself in topics you have no knowledge of. فضائل الصحابة (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You did it literally right here, after you had already added it here. Both times unsourced. And your personal attacks are familiar. R Prazeres (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ikrima ibn Abi Jahl was a leading commander