Talk:Battle of the Camel

message: Where did this inforamtion come from?
Bless sins 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need a section that says there isn't any historical evidence for this event provided. 2600:1011:B18F:2A45:0:12:CC36:4801 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are very few references 

message: I want to merge this page with The battle of Jamal since they are the same battles. But i don't really know how to merge.
Battle of Jamal is a redirect to Battle of the Camel, so I don't think a merge is still needed.  I added a note of the alternate name.--Wcoole (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can some one help me merge! 

message: Please check the refrences on this article. please check and see the role of "Abdullah ibn Sabaa" and please differentiate between the sunni account of the battle, and the motivation behind the march on Kufa, and the Shai account of the events. thank u
___________________________________________________________________________________  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.36.107 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check refrences 

message: This article is written in a clearly shi'ite point of view. It speaks of how ali and aisha fought. There should be two sections of the recountations by both sides. Not just speaking onesidedly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.231.47 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this article in question 

message: The article is crap! It is like the screenplay of a B-Movie! On one hand it says Aisha had 3000 troops and on another hand it says 10,000 men were killed equally from both sides! Were did the other 2000 men come from then? Beam me up Scotty! 94.195.72.113 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a bad translation of an already-bad article in Arabic.  Needs a total rewrite.  KarlM (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nearly a decade later, and sadly it still didn't improve. Dracona94 (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a Novel or an Article? 

message: Please not that all and I reconfirm all history sources say the name is Battle of Camel only wikipedia gave as the totally new name Battle of Bassorah !! I think wiki is trying to give as a new history --82.194.62.25 (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it, although I really cannot fathom how the article remained under "Battle of Bassorah" for so long... Constantine   ✍  11:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong name the correct is Battle of Camel  

message: I was VERY, VERY SURPRISED to see the cross besides of Islamic Shaheeds (martyrs) in the number of Wikipedia Articles, such as:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel
and perhaps many other Articles that I didn't realize about.
I know, some of you might think it's a small, insignificant matters, and that I just overreacted or something. But hey, have you read the history of the The Red Cross and the The Red Crescent symbols? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Relation_to_the_flag_of_Switzerland)
At first, I didn't notice that, I was too tired of doing research about Islamic history that concerned Muslim law of war. Until I carefully looked at this unwelcome symbol and my eyes suddenly got widened. Oh my God! It's a Christian cross! God forbid, you don't put that symbol beside Muslim Martyrs names! It's an insult to their memories who died defending the religion of Islam!
Someone in authority better do something about this, otherwise I might, launch some sort of worldwide awareness campaign regarding this matter, maybe on Facebook. Many Muslims will definitely get upset about this (upset is an understatement!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.169 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This symbol is supposed to represent a dagger not a cross (see Template:KIA). The dagger has historically been used in typography and has many uses in modern times (see Dagger (typography)). On battle-related Wikipedia articles, it stands for Killed in action, hence, it is not just placed after names of Muslim Martyrs but after names of anyone who had died in the battlefield. --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GET RID OF THE 'CROSS' SYMBOL! 

message: The article is still in a rough shape. Status of the following sections:
*Prelude: Cleaned, edited, and merged info. However, I feel that it has little relevance to the actual battle, but I will leave the section in it for now.
*Problems Resurface: Cleaned, edited, and merged info. However, I feel that it has little relevance to the actual battle, but I will leave the section in it for now.
*Conflicts with the Governor of Kufa: Cleaned, edited, and merged info. Good to go. No issues that I found.
*Downfall of Uthman: Cleaned, edited, and merged info. Subsection The Siege of Uthman needs to be referenced. See citation need tags.
*Ali Elected as Caliph: Cleaned, edited, and merged info. Good to go. No issues that I found.
*Events Leading Up To The Battle: Just created this section and added the info that pertains to it. But its a mess. 1 still needs more info. 2 needs to be edited. 3 needs to be placed in chronological order or and order that flows.
*Preparation for battle: Did not touch yet but needs major editing and correcting. Also needs more info.
*Rebels in Basra: Did not touch yet but needs major editing and correcting. Thinking about making it a subsection.
*Battle of the Camel: Did not touch yet but needs major editing and correcting. Also needs more info.
*After The Battle: Did not touch yet but needs major editing and correcting. Needs to be split into subsections. Have to removed irrelevant info yet.
*End of the battle: Did not touch yet but needs major editing and correcting. Also needs more info. Needs to be moved before "After the Battle" section.
*Aftermath: Did not touch yet but needs major editing and correcting.
*Participants: Every individual needs to be referenced
*All references need to be properly cited (Use EasyBib.com)
Article is 38.5% complete. Zabranos (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Merging/Cleanup/Editing Update 

message: I need the following references otherwise I will delete them.
*Esposito (2010, p. 38 (need book title)
*Hofmann (2007), p.86 (need book title)
*Islam For Dummies By Malcolm Clark Page (need pg #)
*The Koran For Dummies By Sohaib Sultan Page (need pg#)
*The Many Faces of Faith: A Guide to World Religions and Christian Traditions By Richard R. Losch (need pg #)
* tabri 2959 2985 (need vol # and pg #)
*al-Baladuri 204-5 (need book title)
*Bewley Pg.17 (need book title)
*The complete history. vol.2,P.19 (need author's name)
*Iraq, a Complicated State Page 32 (need author's name)
*Holt (1977), pp. 67 - 68 (need book title)
*Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (need pg #)
*Lapidus (2002), p.47 (need book title)
*Holt (1977a), p.70 - 72 (need book title)
*Tabatabaei (1979), p.50 - 53 (need book title)
*Tabatabaei 1979 192 (need book title)
This is ridiculous seriously! Zabranos (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are correct that we have a bot that does just that, Johnleeds1, that's not at all what happened here; if it were, then all of the info would be here somewhere. That bot collects references together, as you can see with reference 1. It never deletes info--it just consolidates multiple identical lines into a single line and reference number. We do need full publication information in order to use a citation, though some effort should be made to find the info when there's enough info, such as, for example, a full title that is unambiguous. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference needed 

message: I changed all the references to "Madina" into "Medina", as I believe "Madina" is a variant spelling for the same city and that "Medina" is the standard spelling in English and on the English Wikipedia.  The mix of spellings within a single article was confusing.  If this is incorrect, please include some explanation to correct my ignorance.Wcoole (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madina 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Camel. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507092829/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=72 to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=72
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927212719/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329020223/http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia/10.htm to http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia/10.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My changes focused on two things. 1. Improving the grammar of the sentences because the coherence of this page is very poor, and 2. Adding more clarity and information about the Sunni perspective from a Sunni source. These changes were reverted without a clear explanation. I would like to undo this reversion if a clear explanation is not provided. On the other hand, if a more substantive explanation is provided, and my method of adding these changes were genuinely flawed, I would like the opportunity to address the contentions or to incorporate my edits in a more sound and acceptable way using your feedback. Thank you. --SacredSunflower (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes reverted without clear substantiation?

message: As noted by others on this page, large parts of this article are poorly written and/or poorly sourced. I'm hoping to work on this article over the next few weeks to try and improve it a bit. I'll propose the major changes here first (if any).  Albertatiran (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: In need of a major revision

message: The section on the battle claims that the "battle began at noon on a December day in 656 CE" while the info-box says "7 November 656 CE (13 Jumada Al-Awwal 36 AH)". These claims cannot both be true. AstroLynx (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! Albertatiran (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not! 8 December 656 converts to 14 (or 15) Jumada al-Thani or al-Akhirah [Jumada II, not Jumada I as given by Madelung] 36 AH in the Islamic calendar. Perhaps a printer's typo, I instead of II, or perhaps an error by Madelung? What do other sources say? AstroLynx (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Date conflict

message: There is very few variations in the key areas of contention. I know this is wikipedia, but god its the same five citations over and over again. We don’t rely on primary sources only, but we shouldn’t rely on the same five secondary’s. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:5214 (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point. I do hope to revise the article or parts of it in the next couple of months. I'll try to improve the quality of the sources (e.g., remove Rogerson) and add new reliable sources. Albertatiran (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: At that time the Sindhi people were under the Brahmin Shahi Chach, so whatever went on from the Sindh side in this war, it went only with the permission of the raja Chach! 103.206.177.49 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sindhi people 

message: It is to be noted that Banu Umayyah refers to the Tribe that would later found the Umayyad Caliphate and Dynasty. In 656 CE, at the time of this battle, only the former existed. Haditaha.z (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banu Umayya vs Umayyad Caliphate