Talk:Banu Qaynuqa

message: The discussion of the dispute surrounding this article is taking place, at Talk:Banu Nadir.  Please see. Publicola 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Content discussion needs to take place here. The above message is not adequate to discuss changes such as reverts that are resulting in edit warring. Talk about it here, with all the editors before making such changes. pschemp | talk 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we all duplicate our effort posting discussions in two articles talk pages when one article essentially includes all of the other, because you can't take the time to follow that polite request to see the discussion on the other page?  Wikipedia:Edit_war says it's wrong to revert without discussion, not to duplicate the necessary discussion on all the articles that pertain to it.  I started this section to head off just such a complaint of edit warring.  Please WP:AGF yourself.  And a plea comprised of four polite sentences does not qualify as a "rant" where I come from. Publicola 20:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You just ignored good faith again by accusing me of not looking at the other article. I have looked at it and while it may be related, there doesn't seem to be a merge request. Even so, there is no reason consensus can't be reached on the disposition of this article there, and until such time, this one will remain protected. pschemp | talk 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I've looked at the repeated insertions here, and found the what Publicola is inserting has partly been taken word for word from .  This is in violation of US copyright law. Due to this, the legal implications of it and the constant edit warring, I have protected the page. All involved editors, please work out an acceptable, non copyvio version here, and come to consensus. After that, the protection will be lifted. pschemp | talk 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, you intended to provide a different link because the one above points to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is in the public domain and matches Briangott's version. Pecher Talk 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original may be, but why does it say, "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved." at the bottom of the webpage then?pschemp | talk 19:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is the text in the public domain, it was obviously not inserted by me, and I find this accusation against me by an administrator with whom I was just discussing resolution of our dispute to be suspect at best.  I am asking that this version be unprotected and reverted to Itaqallah's version which was obviouly not a product of "edit waring" and which includes the Arabic script, the request for which has been outstanding above for months.  Furthermore, I object to the characterization of my attempt to maintain a neutral point of view as an edit war.  I have already explained the fact that the version of this article I've been working on addresses several bias problems, at Talk:Banu Nadir#Continued reintroduction of bias by reverts. Publicola 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Text may well be in the public domain, but that particular website is not usable due to the copyright assertion at the bottom of their page. Please show a non-copyrighted source. And it doesn't matter who orginally inserted it, fighting back and forth about it is edit warring. For legal protection, I had to revert to the last edit that didn't inculde it. If it is public domain fine, but that is a risk we can't take until its proven. Work our your issues here. pschemp | talk 19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I checked the diff and indeed read it wrong Please WP:AGF and let me check though, before posting rants. However, you are all still edit warring, and it changes nothing. pschemp | talk 19:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that. In answer to your copyright question, "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia." As for your accusations of edit warring, again, I direct you to Talk:Banu Nadir, where the revisions you see as a revert war were being discussed, before both pages were protected. The reason it looks like an undiscussed edit war here is because Banu Nadir includes, and has for the past several weeks included, almost all of the text of this article, because the history of the Banu Qaynuqa are very integral to that of the Banu Nadir. Before you accuse me of edit warring, please have a look at what I've been trying to correct; in particular, would you please direct your attention to the discussion surrounding the opinion of the editor(s) you have supported by protecting the current version of this article, that "all authoritative Muslim historians died several centuries ago"? Again, thank you for recognizing that I didn't include the text you thought was a copyright violation, and please unprotect and revert to the version with the Arabic script included. Publicola 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, the only text of this referrenced anywhere is the Jewishencyclopedia.com site which says "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved."  Show me a source without a copyright notice please.  It doesn't matter what you do or don;'t insert, the repitions rather than talking are edit warring. I will not unprotect until a version is worked out here on the talk page first. pschemp | talk 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first thing that http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ says, after its menu and headings, is, "This website contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, which was originally published between 1901-1906. The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain, contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations. This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia." Publicola 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I really don't understand what you are trying to tell me. The text you are complaining about has no such reference to the website. The "original publication information" is that it is "originally published between 1901-1906" and thus firmly in the public domain, as I just stated in boldface above. Please explain how I can fix it when the article is still protected. Publicola 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been researching this issue since I first posted and I understand that now, and that any claim they made on the original text would be hard to defend. However, I'm just trying to make sure we are playing it safe and not even allowing for the possibility of problems especially since this is a resource that we use so much. I can't imagine that finding the original publication info would be hard for those who know where to look. Its a simple solution. pschemp | talk 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jewish Encyclopedia makes the copyright status of the online text completely clear. The copyright notice applies to things on the jewishencyclopedia.com web site other than the text, e.g, the menus and headings and such. It doesn't matter if you copy-and-paste the text from there or type it in from the bound 1906 volumes, it's the same text. Publicola 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point. Besides, User:Briangotts and I already worked out the solution nicely on my talk page so it doesn't matter anymore. The text is usable and the actual publication information will be added.pschemp | talk 01:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you are satisfied with the copyright status of the Jewish Encyclopedia, which this article is now only a paragraph from, and you have seen that the changes were being discussed, would you please unprotect the article so that editors may continue adding the Islamic viewpoint, based on the three sources you reverted away, and the arabic script as requested above, provided by Itaqallah, which you also reverted away when you falsely syspected copyright infringement?  You may wish to check that additional discussion of the changes has occured in the mean time, and as you know I have requested mediation. Publicola 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course you have. Again, I will not unprotect until you (meaning all the editors) paste a copy here, work out your differences and come to a consensus on the words. At that point I will happily unprotect. As for your complaint about the current content, the template clearly states "(Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)" pschemp | talk 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Mediation is in progress at Talk:Banu Nadir and the mediation page. 
I have placed my preferred version at Banu Qaynuqa/mpov (m=multiple; see my userpage for details) in hopes that others will edit it to achieve a compromise mediation version while this article is protected. Publicola 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: This came up in discussion with another user concerning the debate around the Banu Qaynuqa's war, which was really the first time Jews and Muslims ever fought, isn't it?  If you accept the story about the war escalating from the stripped naked woman in the jewlery store:
:Maybe God has a seperate universe somewhere or somewhen else, where the pin broke and her clothes stayed on when she stood up, the Constitution of Medina held, and 1500 years later Jews and Muslims are still strong allies. Don't we all have an obligation to try to get back into to that world?
As an agnostic non-Muslim, non-Jew, I hope that God is the sort that would keep a nice, friendly universe around along with our drama-filled one for strictly experimental purposes, and judges us all by how well we can calm things down. I sure have a long way to go! Publicola 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A tangental thought 

message: I just read the article, and its just horribly anti-islamic pov. This version needs to get back as soon as possible. --Striver 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pov

message: This was blocked weeks ago and there is no discussion here, but I understand that it may be the subject of mediation.  Is there a general feeling that this article must still be protected, or should I release protection to see what happens? --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected.Voice-of-All 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect?

message: I think the current version is pretty well balanced.  I wish I could look up those online Islam encyclopedia articles. Publicola 12:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks, Pecher 

message: I've gone through the whole thing and removed unnecessary "the"s. "Banu" is translated into "the sons/daughters of", one of the two plural forms of "bin" (the other form being "Bani"). For the sake of consistency, we'll keep them all as "Banu". My logic: adding another "the" would translate to "the the sons/daughters of". A logical change, yes? An obvious exception to having an additional "the" would be something like "the Banu Qaynuqa tribe", since 'the' in this case refers to the tribe, and reads (grammatically/syntactically) smoothly (....the...tribe...). The same change has been applied previously to Banu Nadir/mpov. Cheers. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the academic English sources I know spell the names of tribes with the definite article. in all cases. You may want to argue that they are all wrong, but Wikipedia is not the best place to do so. The same logic applies to your doubts of the work of Weinsinck and Paret. Both are famous orientalists published by a highly respected source; opinions of individual wikipedians are, sadly, not important as far as the articles are concerned. This is part of the job of historians (and other scholars) to arrive at conclusions using their reasoning. We cannot go back in time to see whether the Big Bang actually happened; it is through their reasoning that the physicists have arrived at the conclusion that the Big Bang occurred. Pecher Talk 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming good faith, I'd like to get an idea who you are (you forgot your name in your signature). Further, I thought terms like "orientalists" and such had been wiped clean by post-post-modernist academics...which actually helps explain why Wiki is not really regarded as a bonafied academic resource. My goal is to be a part of the process towards reaching that...and I honestly don't believe Wiki or its readers are served by holding on to outdated epistemes. With all due respect, it's exactly this kind of attitude that discourages real academics from continuing to be a part of this process...this constant bickering and losing track of the big picture of this project we know as Wiki: improving Wiki (specifically) and general academia for all seekers of knowledge. Just my 2.5 cents...but I'm sure life will move on for all of us. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 10:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if it is even accepted that some Jews decided to stay in Medina just to protect their property, then we need to have a source that would also state that they were hypocrites i.e. they did not convert to Muslims with their hearts but for materialistic reasons. --SaadSaleem 02:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Changes 

message: This is the second anon that has edited without using the page. The factually accuracy is disputed because the scholarly consensus on the constitution is that there is no consensus, and so what we have is not neutral because it is presenting dubious positive information about Muhammad. Arrow740 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a strange fact that on a large number of Islam-related articles, one can count on one or more anons, sometimes using experienced edit summaries, to revert, invariably in the service of the "pro-Islam" POV. Anons, after all, don't have watchlists.Proabivouac 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the day, it is not who reverts the page that matters, but the argument presented to revert the page.Bless sins 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using an anon IP to avoid 3RR will get you a block. Arrow740 05:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow740 one thing I don't tolerate is a false accusation. Although I sometimes I forget to log on (due to carelessness), I am not that anon.Bless sins 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't accuse you and I didn't think it was you. If I did I would have reported it. Arrow740 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anons 

message: What is the reason for presenting so prominently in the article the view by Shibli Nomani that the Qaynuqa's response to Muhammad was "a declaration of war"? Beit Or 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shibli Nomani is a prominent scholar. Also, i thought it be appropraite to the name the shcolar instead of writing "some scholars...".Bless sins 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was not whether he is notable or not, but that he is just one person and that there are more influential Muslim scholars than him. Are his views representative? If so, they may be sourced to other Muslim scholars. If not, we should give more spce to the dominant view. At the moment, the reader receives no information on which view is prevalent among Muslim scholars. Beit Or 10:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I'll look for more "influential Muslim scholars" such as Maududi etc. Feel free to add the opinions of any other "influential Muslim scholars" that you come across.Bless sins 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomani 

message: The article claims with reference to Ibn Ishaq that "Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina." However, Ibn Ishaq says something entirely different: "Asim b. Umar b. Qatada said that the B. Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the apostle and to go to war, between Badr and Uhud..." A claim made by one non-notable man (a grandson of a companion of Muhammad) is extrapolated to all traditional Muslim sources. Beit Or 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the whole narrative of Banu Qaynuqa is related by the same individual, which is apparent when you refer to Tabari (SUNY pubs). ITAQALLAH 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick glance at Ibn Ishaq reveals that at least one part of the story is told by Ibn Ishaq's father. Anyway, you didn't address my argument. Beit Or 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asim b. Umar b. Qatada provides the vast majority of information on this episode it seems. i'm not quite certain what you are arguing against. i don't see any significant discrepancy between what the narrator says and what the article says.if it's the narrator, i don't believe we are in a position to decide which narrators are notable and which aren't.. ITAQALLAH 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want us to start relying significantly on Ibn Hisham in articles? Arrow740 19:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ? that's not Beit Or's objection. ITAQALLAH 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...to which you didn't respond. Beit Or 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you may wish to refer to my previous response again. i stated: "i'm not quite certain what you are arguing against." ITAQALLAH 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was pretty explicit. Per Ibn Ishaq, Asim ibn Umar ibn Qatada says that the Banu Qaynuqa were the first to go to war with Muhammad. The article transforms this into "Traditional Muslim sources view these episodes as a violation of the Constitution of Medina." The gap between Asim and all traditional Muslim sources is enourmous. Whether the story originates entirely with him (it doesn't) is irrelevant, because according to the source given, this is Asim's own, personal view. I don't find it inconceivable that Muslim sources claim the Qaynuqa violated the Constitution of Medina. However, this is not supported by the cited source. Beit Or 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious assertion sourced to Ibn Ishaq 

message: What Beit Or added is basically analysis of facts (or alleged facts). actualy, we can even call this "speculation". I don't really have a problem when notable scholars add analysis. But others shouldn't either. For example if I add Maududi's analysis to an article it shoudln't be attacked and removed.Bless sins 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The additions are a good example of a situation when analysis done by modern historians is relevant and topical: it presents a counterweight to the Muslim version of the events. Beit Or 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not attacking your additions rather your apparent double standards. You add analysis or speuclations form non-Muslim scholars (which is all well and good), but you remove analysis and specualtions from Muslim scholars.Bless sins 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call "analysis and specualtions from Muslim scholars" are in fact a POV rehashing of the material already covered in the article in a NPOV manner. Beit Or 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything in the article covered on Banu Qurayza's weapons, possibly to aid Quraysh? If there is please point me to it. Also, the analysis you have added is also POV. NPOV states that we present all notable POVs fairly.Bless sins 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Constitution of Medina was a later document. Ibn Hisham's version of it is not accurate. There is no consensus among historians as to when it was written. You can read all about the debate at the talk page for Muhammad as a diplomat. Arrow740 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly it would have violated it, and is an excellent illustration of why it is so extremely unlikely that they should ever have agreed to such a one-sided arrangement: they'd have been putting themselves into war and out of work.Proabivouac 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Commenced hostilities" is not the same as "was the first to commence hostilities"; it does not furthermore imply aggression, even though it was certainly Muhammad who started war against the Quraysh by raiding their caravans. Beit Or 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "commence" means to start. Actually, I am looking for scholars who suggest that the Quraysh commenced hostilities agianst Muhammad. Should I find them, it will be clear that the view you have presented is of a tiny minority.Bless sins 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: Bless sins, your partial quote reads: "...Muhammad regarded that as casus belli, and collected a force to beseige the clan. There were doubtless some negotiations..." Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be on Google books, so I cannot check the context. It would be nice if, as on Banu Qurayza, you would share the entire passage. Judging from this excerpt alone, I do not believe it is justified to rephrase this as, "It was certain, according to Watt, that the siege must have been preceded by some sort of negotiations." While it's true that "doubtless" has the same "literal" import as "It is certain," in practice the latter is far stronger than the former, which in context suggests inference rather then verified truth.Proabivouac 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we can replace "it is certain" with "doubtless". this may seem to be a bad excuse, but I'm out of touch with the main library (not all libraries have Watt) I use, right now for a number of personal and physical reasons. This is why I didn't immediately provide you the "al-Halabi" quote supporting Maududi. this'll have to wait. But if you can't find it on google books how will the entire passage help? Bless sins 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might throw some light upon the intended strength or basis for his inference. "There were doubtless some negotiations, as might be expected to occur before an attack," would be useless, while "There were doubtless some negotiations, as  so-and-so was sent to their compound a week prior," would be quite substantial and deserving of a more specific treatment.Proabivouac 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see what you mean. But in any case, the quote would not be useless. Watt opines there there were negotiations. His opinions are no less scholarly than those alredy presented by Beit Or and others.Bless sins 03:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least two problems with Watt's passage as it is currently used. First, it is not fully clear whether negotiations, according to Watt, preceded the siege. Secondly, if they did, then Watt may have referred to the dialogue between Muhammad and the Jews in the market place, which is quoted in the article verbatim from Ibn Ishaq. In this case, the reference to Watt is a redundancy. Beit Or 12:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. We need the whole passage quoted here.Proabivouac 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage reads "There were doubtless some negotiations, but no record has been preserved".Bless sins 20:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doutbless

message: The words "In the Muslim tradition" are absolutely necessary in the sentence about Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy being chracterized as a hypocrite. A munafiq is a Muslim term; it makes no sense outside the Muslim tradition. Watt may not say so outright, but he clearly implies that, and Stillman, for example, does add these words. Scholars do not qualify every statement by saying it's only true from the Muslim viewpoint. For example, EoI and many other works on Islam call Muhammad "the Prophet"; however, it would be totally wrong to infer that scholars indeed believe Muhammad was a prophet. Beit Or 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: reasonable point. however, it assumes that the title may have come from later historians and not when he was alive. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrite in Muslim tradition 

message: Beit Or, would you please explain why you removed Watt's view here ? Watt says Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions (not that they should be killed). --Aminz 21:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "lenient (yes, spell this word correctly, please) about other conditions" mean? That's a completely inane phrase. Beit Or 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can not be sure what exactly Watt meant but it can include the details of what they can carry with themselves, when they have to leave, etc etc. Watt's main point is that Ibn Ubay tried to convince Muhammad that the presense of Qaynuna and their military power can help Medina against Mecca. But Muhammad was insisting that they must leave but he wasn't insisting on other details. --Aminz 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If even you're unsure what Watt meant, then please leave him alone. Parsing through elliptical quotes is a complete waste of Wikipedians' time. Beit Or 21:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sure of what Watt says. I am not sure of what Watt doesn't say and has in his mind. --Aminz 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, could you please quote the relevant text from Ibn Ishaq regarding "Although Muhammad was initially irritated with ibn Ubayy and tried to put him off, but ultimately yielded to Abdullah's insistence and agreed to expel the Qaynuqa." --Aminz 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a summary of their conversation on the relevant page. Please read it yourself, it's too long to type. Beit Or 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Thanks --Aminz 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read it. The text is not clear as to what Muhammad wanted to do, only that Ibn Ubay were asking Muhammad to treat them mercifully. --Aminz 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, please do not remove the original quote before we have reached a consensus for its summary. --Aminz 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watt's quote