Talk:Banu Qurayza/Archive 3

message: Hi, 
Let's discuss the addition of a short summary of the following quote:
quote:
 Some Western writers have said, "Sa'd bin Mu'adh gave such a strict verdict because he had been injured by the Bani Qurayza and he was motivated by a need for retaliation." Bt this is a mistaken judgment, for it was not the Qurayza but the Quraysh who had inflicted on Sa'd the wound from which he died. The man whose arrow had struck him was Ibn il-Arqa and he was a man of the Quraysh. 
Quote from Hajjah Amina Adil, a Muslim scholar in "Muhammad: The Messenger of Islam" , p.396 --Aminz 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is noteworthy for its reliance on quality sources; let's not ruin that.Proabivouac 09:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: What is the reasoning behind the split into "references" and "further reading"? Str1977 (smile back) 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References is for sourced statements. Further reading is for further reading, as the name says. By the way, "beheading" is the correct and actual term. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't help much as it only repeats the titles and hasn't been applied consistently. Str1977 (smile back) 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore you shouldn't throw around accusations like you did in your edit summary - don't say I try to whitewash Muhammad unless you want to create amusment. Str1977 (smile back) 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References vs. further reading

message: I think it would be good to start a Mediation on this article. We have previously filed article RfC etc etc. So, that should be a good next step. --Aminz 23:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Arrow740 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The font is very small. Can you please read it for us? --Aminz 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: to base "or with whom" over details concerning with which of the Jews the agreement was made is a terrible overstatement. all sources are in agreement that the constitution was formed in general between the Jews (regardless of which specific tribes), pagans, and Muslims (see e.g Firestone p. 119): there is no need to exaggerate the scope of the dispute. ITAQALLAH 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, which Jewish tribes were party to the agreement is a very important issue, and here the opinions of scholars diverge. You know, it's one thing when all the three major tribes signed it; it's quite another when only some small clans did so. Beit Or 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we can be specific about the nature of the dispute instead of vague. ITAQALLAH 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you're referring to the theory of a post-Qurayza agreement with Jewish remnants, this doesn't appear to be more than a minority view (i recalled you mentioned Gil as a proponent). there is little reason to doubt that agreements were made with the major Jewish clans, and even those who dispute its chronology (Watt, Serjeant, Peters) don't appear to doubt that. ITAQALLAH 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a debate better held on Talk:Constitution of Medina. The current language of the article is appropriate given its topic; it's unnecessary to delve into the specifics of the academic debate on the Constitution of Medina. Beit Or 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately, the phrase "or with whom" is a substantial overstatement of the nature of the dispute. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. How could one postulate the existence of such an entity? Arrow740 00:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Or with whom" 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Reasons for verdict and suggestions:
The nomination has been placed on hold. On the whole, this article is written well, is well referenced and I believe that it is written from an NPOV, however, I have one major criticism that will temporarily stop this article from getting a GA tag:
*Section 5 - This article is in no way stable. I decided not to quick-fail the article as most of the edits have been discussed and there is reasoning for many of the changes. However, I cannot approve the article as a GA unless it is stable, as at the rate this article is changed, the reviewed version would be different by tomorrow. You need to settle on a version of events. Although I didn't quick-fail the article, I would not be so lenient next time.
*Section 1b - Nothing major, but a few errors are present, for example, there should be a space after the citation and the mention of William Montgomery Watt.
As with all GANs placed on hold, you have a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7 days to address the issues. Should they have been addressed, the article will pass, otherwise, it will fail. I will re-review in 5 to 7 days. On a separate note, I recommend you archive some of the discussion on this talk page. Good luck and happy editing! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but this article is not neutral and there are active edit dispute. This article is not netural and it can not pass GA nomination. Please see Talk:Banu_Qurayza#GA_nomination. --Aminz 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, I must admit that I am skeptical that you would want this to be acknowledged as a good article under any conditions: the most "controversial" things here are the undisputed facts, not the various details over which we've been bickering to keep the dispute alive.Proabivouac 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a suggestion that will reduce your skepticism. Why don't you first remove the POV "Historical persecutions by Muslims" from the "see also", add the section (that was removed), fixed the intro and then I would be more than happy to support GA nomination. Sounds good? --Aminz 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you say you will stop disrupting this article when you have it your way? This is blackmail. Beit Or 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a quite an inappropriate move on your behalf to nominate this for GA when you very well knew that there are active disputes. I'd rather not to comment on your uncivil language.--Aminz 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our reviewer did not complain about the lack of a "moral judgments" section, but only that the article is unstable.Proabivouac 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|GA]] nomination on hold 

message: I would like to add to the caption, "Muhammad and Ali are shown as flames, with Muhammad seated above, and Ali in the center wielding a sword." This is easily observed; however I don't have a source offhand, which is a problem.Proabivouac 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image caption

message: Here are two sources I found for this article, but I only found the titles:
*M. Kister, 'The Massacre of the Banu Qurayza', Jerusalem Studies of Arabic and Islam, 8 (1986), pp. 61-96
*M. Lecker, “On Arabs of the Banu Kilab executed together with the jewish Banu Qurayza”, JSAI 19, 1995.
These were both published in JSAI, as you can see. I couldnt find much information on Kister but Lecker is a professor in Jerusalem. I would have added information from these sources if I had found them. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources found for massacre of Banu Qurayza 

message: As per my previous review, issues of stability have not been solved, and therefore, this article has been failed under category five of WP:WIAGA. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues under dispute are very minor, particularly the hair-splitting about Stillman material. In truth, the article has been remarkably stable for quite some time - compare Islam, which got rapidly GA's and then FA'd despite substantial changes and periods of serious disruption. In any event, we should have another day, shouldn't we? I was supposed to help broker a compromise on the Stillman details, and unfortunately got caught up in other things, so I'm feeling somewhat responsible.Proabivouac 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be anywhere between 2 and 7 days - I decided that one day wasn't going to sort out the issues; there are too many people with too many hugely differing opinions who are too willing to change back things. If you do feel I've been unfair, you may take this case to Articles for review. Don't see the fail as a personal thing - this article does have promise if you can all settle and prove to any reviewer that the article isn't going to have large edits to facts over the course of a few days. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the stability criterion implies that the article must be completely frozen for days or weeks. Compare the current version with the a month-old one: you're not going to see many significant changes. In fact, the bulk of the article has remained intact for months. This is my understanding of stability. There are a couple of editors here who are struggling to push their POV; their reverts and complaints have accelerated after the GA nominations. Sadly, the failure of this nominations in the absence of any significant objections to the article's content tells them that they can successfully keep this article hostage. Beit Or 21:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Aminz, re your summary, are you going to withdraw your objections if this material is allowed to stay?Proabivouac 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see it as me "allowing" something or not. It is a question of whether the article passes the requirements or not. There are unresolved disputes that should be taken to a Mediation page and discussed once and forever. --Aminz 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To wit, I don't find this material particularly useful, and I see no purpose for its inclusion other than as a compromise which stabilizes the article.Proabivouac 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination failed

message: Reccently, some have placed :Template:Criticism of Islam on this article. This article is about the history of Arabian Jews and of early Islam, not criticism of anything…though of course, were we to add a huge section exploring contemporary moral judgments of the events described, as has been suggested, then the template might be appropriate.Proabivouac 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, thanks. Arrow740 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let's leave criticism to the criticism article. Beit Or 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Islam template

message: ;Dispute: 
Addition of "W. N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed the historicity of the incident.Ahmad argues that only the leaders of the tribe were killed. Arafat argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident." 
(Arafat's article can be found at "Arafat, Walid N. New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina,  Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 100-107.")
Since this discussion was archived, I'll provide a summary of arguments for inclusion of the above passage at the end of the article:
Quotes:
Hugh Goddard, a Professor of Christian-Muslim Relations says(cf. p.12 Published by Routledge 1995): 
 There has been a considerable amount of recent scholarly discussion concerning Muhammad's treatment of the Jews, and especially concerning the historicity or otherwise of the massacre of Banu Qurayza. See W.N. Arafat "New light on the story of Banu..." 
Josef W. Meri says (Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia By Josef W. Meri, p.754, Published 2005, Routledge):
"On the other hand, significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat, have objected to the notorious tales concerning the expulsion and execution of the Jews of Medina that form an integral part of the Maghazi as "unislamic". 
William Montgomery Watt in Encyclopedia of Islam says:
"Recently, W. N. Arafat in JRAS[1976], 100-7, has maintained that by no means all the adult males were killed, but his argument is not entirely convincing 
"The Oxford Handbook of Jewish history" (p.198) says: 
"In recent decades there has been considerable discussion, on both sides of the larger debate, around the issue of Muhammad's own policy toward the Jews of Medina (e.g. Gil 1974; Arafat 1976; Ahmad 1979; Rubin 1985; Kister 1986)".
Jamal Badawi says:
"A scholarly article by W. N. Arafat questions the exaggerated estimate of the number of fighting men who were punished, which is found even in some biographies about the Prophet’s life, like that of Ibn Ishaq. His argument is compelling and well researched." 
; Previous discussions
In the previous discussion, myself, Str1977, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Bless sins, Itaqallah agreed with addition of Arafat and Ahmad's view. It was there for awhile until User:Arrow740 re-started removing that. --Aminz 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those people endorse it. It is an extreme minority view. Do you deny it? Yes or no. Arrow740 08:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is hard for me to understand why you ask the same question you were asking way back. It's minority-held, but has been widely discussed, which contributes to its notability. --Aminz 09:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i believe the consensus was to contain a brief word about it. ITAQALLAH 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arafat and Ahmed