Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat/Archive 1

message: almost all biographical works on Muhammad include the "year of delegations" where leaders from various tribes all around arabia came to convert or assumedly establish friendly relations (post conquest of Mecca i believe) ITAQALLAH 04:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: need to add: "Year of Delegations"

message: this is from the back of his book (suprisingly there is no WP article on him): 
Martin Forward has taught Islam at the Universities of Leicester, Bristol, and Cambridge. He is currently Senior Tutor and Lecturer in Pastoral and Systematic Theology, Wesley House, Cambridge and is a member of the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity endquote. ITAQALLAH 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: who is [[Forward]]? 

message: Keep it up :) --Striver 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with Striver! Thanks for creating this. mstroeck 20:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What about refering this article as featured article on wikipedia. TruthSpreaderTalk 00:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  It is very well written, and I think WP:PR followed by WP:FAC is the way to go. -- Samir धर्म 12:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great job Itaqallah. --Aminz 08:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great job!

message: Saw the request for comment, and after reading over the article and discussion, here are my thoughts:
Firstly, don't edit war over the NPOV dispute tag.  The tag does not mean that the article VIOLATES the NPOV policy-- it just means that a discussion about the subject is on-going.  This is clearly the case.   Proabivouac, if your concerns are limited to only a few portions of the article, it might be helpful for you to replace the tag with section tags, but if it's an article-wide concern, just leave the current tag up.
Two, Proabivouac-- what exactly are some of the things you think are wrong with the page.  You've indicated some, but it's sometimes hard to follow.  You should state out what your objections are to the current page, keeping in mind that the identities and motivations of the authors of this page are irrelevant.  You mention something about violence with the Jews in Medina, but as someone who knows very little about the life of Mohammed, it's hard to follow exactly what the situation is, and what changes you would want made.
Now, having said that-- I do find a few things that makes me suspect that the current article might have a few NPOV problems-- keeping in mind, of course, that I don't know exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to the specific subject matter, so I really can only comment on  NPOV language and NPOV organization-- not specific historical NPOV.  In cases like this, I tend to ask myself "Can I deduce, on the basis of reading this article, what the author felt about the subject matter".  If an article is truly NPOV, it should be very difficult for me to figure out the answer to that question.  In this case, I don't see any egregious NPOV violations, but I do get the sense that the authors have a highly favorable opinion of the person being discussed.    
For example, take the sentence in the lead section: "The arrival of Muhammad at Medina in 622 saw him altering the political and social landscape of a city that had been stricken by decades of tribal feuding".  It just seems a little bit too glorifying of Muhammad-- saying in essents that "Muhammmad saved Medina from its horrible disease" rather than describing the events in a more historically neutral light.  
Another 'hint' that there might be NPOV problems-- the text seems very narrative-like.   What I mean by that is-- on any controversial subject, such as the founder of a major world religion, there are bound to be disputes cropping up everywhere.  One sources say this, but other sources say that.  Lots of people think this, but other people thing that.   I don't see a lot of 'synthesis' in the text-- it seems much more like a cohesive narrative, as if it were taking from one source or a groups of sources that are all in agreement.  I assume this is because the Islamic sources for the historical Muhammed are mostly in agreement but, I guess I'm left feeling I don't fully know what's universally agreed to be true, what's mostly agreed to be true, and what's hotly-debated about the subject.  I just know that Muhammed, like every other religious figure in history, is a subject for much dispute and controversy-- and I don't really see much controversy or debate in this article.  It mostly speaks as if it knows all the facts, as if the facts are not at all in debate-- and that makes me suspect it's speaking from one particular POV, rather than a NPOV.  Does that make sense?  I know that's not a very clear way to say it. 
Lastly, I have to sort of question the focus of the whole page--  "Muhammed as a diplomat", "Muhammed as a general", and "Muhammed as a husband" seems a very odd way to break up the content.  As Proabivouac alludes-- sometimes the role of diplomat and general are often inseperable.  Since diplomatic negotion and military action are so closely linked, it seems very odd to split the two in this way.  Furthermore, much of the content doesn't really relate to "Muhammed as a diplomat".  For example, "Muslim migration to Abyssinia" doesn't really have much to do with Muhammed being a diplomat.  Meanwhile, the correspondence section is certainly 'diplomatic', it seems very non-biographical and almost "tacked on".  I would think you could break that off into an article called something like "extant correspondence involving Muhammed"   
I'm also not fond of the title "Muhammed as a diplomat", since diplomat has such positive connotations that it essentially involves a value-judgement about Muhammed.  I'm not saying that value judgement is necessarily wrong, I'm just saying we shouldn't necessarily be making it.  If you don't think there's a value judgement involved, consider this-- Hitler certainly engaged in international negotation, he employed a diplomatic corp, and conducted treaty negotations with other leaders, etc.  But would we ever allow an article entitled "Hitler as a diplomat"?  No-- because we would regard that even if he technically engaged in diplomacy, the positive connotations of diplomat are too strong for us to use such a non-neutral term.   Now, I'm not in any way saying that Muhammed is like Hitler mind you-- I'm just saying that having a "_____ as a diplomat" article automatically implies certain value-judgements, and we ought to try to find a more neutral title. 
But, none of this is to imply any lack of good faith on the part of the editors here.  Writing a really good article is really hard, and it takes a lot of voices and a lot of different editors to reach a good NPOV article.  I'm not familiar with the history, but the language certainly doesn't imply any egregious overt promotion of a POV.  Overall, I'd say it looks a fine start-- it's just a 'young' article that still has a lot way to go, but there's a lot of valuable information here, a lot of cited sources, and nothing that jumps out at me as being a glaringly obvious problem.  If I were more familiar with the Good Article criteria and the subject matter, I would be inclined to deny GA status right now, but I'm out of my element in both cases, so I'll leave it up to the GA people to make that call.  But keep working at it, and I thank everyone who's helped make Wikipedia a better place by contributing to this.  
  
My suggestions for improving the article:
*Merge "Muhammed as a Diplomat" and "Muhammed as a general" together to create something like "Muhammed as a political leader" or "Muhammed as a ruler" or something like that.
*Break off the correspondence section into its own article.  The biographical summary and the letters are sufficiently different that a summary of the letters can stand on its own.  
*Expand alternative views-- include critical views, debates within Islam, views of other religions, etc to try to create a more comprehensive article
*Scrutinize the article for statements which have wordings that are inherently demeaning, glorifying, or otherwise value-laden.  If there's a more-neutral, more "just the facts" way to say something, use that way.  Go sentence by sentence and ask "Is this wording too exciting/positive/negative/etc?"   Silly as it sounds, ask "Is there a more boring way to say this?" 
*Ya'll might want to get rid of the pic of the modern at-Ta'if.  Call me silly for even worrying about this possibility, but, it might confuse someone about what era Muhammed lived in.  But in any case, it doesn't add much to the current article.    
Hope that helps! 
--Alecmconroy 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: As per the new instructions concerning WP:GA/R, (Which can change of course) I am notifying the editors of this article and all whom may be concerned that a dispute has been opened concerning this article's GA status, so feel free to chime in. Homestarmy 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article review

message: Of five images in this article, the authenticity of two, the letters, are disputed. Is it correct to say that the seals are based upon these letters? If so, then these, too, may be inauthentic. Finally, there is a map of Abyssinia from an entirely different period than that discussed in the article. Is there a reason why these images have been included, other than to meet the images criterion for Good Article status?Proabivouac 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: to suggest that the seals may be inauthentic because the texts of some of the correspondances are considered by some to be inauthentic is OR. i don't know of any sources criticising the seal. wrt Abyssinia, having a picture of that general area is notable to illustrate the rough distance of migration as well as the required journey across sea (the edge of the arab peninsula is at the top right), and also to give an idea of the territory that Abyssinia covered as opposed to ethiopia. unfortunately, 1890 is the earliest free pic i could find on the commons (more medieval ones may exist elsewhere on the web), although i think for the most part that the boundaries of abyssinia are not noted to have changed as far as i know up until the early 20th century (although i may be wrong, i'm currently checking the abyssinia article itself). if you could find a better free picture, we could always consider that. ITAQALLAH 01:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: ... and to cease this totally needless dragging on of a stagnating discussion i would request that Proabivouac organise all of his qualms with the article as follows. perferably, answer within this section.
Content, tone
*note every instance where you believe the content or tone is inappropriate, or where there is a factual error. this includes the following:
:#specifying the exact passage, and to whom it has been sourced;
:#stating why it is not correct. where relevant, provide an opposing source which is directly relevant to the context of the paragraph/passage.
Source issues
*organise your arguments as to why the sealed nectar may not be used here or anywhere else. there have been numerous evidences provided above as to why it is notable and usable, and so you are expected to argue why in the light of this it cannot be used. also, please do reply to other editors' (as well as mine) responses (some of which you have not replied to) to your concerns so that we can move forward instead of having to repeat the same points.
if you could do the above so we can bring this dispute to an end, then i think that would be in everyone's interests. thanks. ITAQALLAH 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in the interests of dispute resolution.. 

message: On Hold status expires. As of 30 September 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment:
1. It is well written.
:(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers → pass
::It's a nicely written article. It is not really hard for non-specialist readers to understand the subject. Perhaps some improvements are still needed to make it brilliant. There are some orphan paragraphs that consist only 1 or 2 lines and it should be merged with others. There is also one suggestion from me above to make a summary of chrolonological events, where Muhammad conducted diplomacy. Here, readers will be more understand of the time axis between events. This summary can be written in tabular form.
:(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles) → weak pass
::Hierarchically, the structure is quite logical. Since the subject describes about history, I'd suggest editors to include timeline in each headline. For example, Muslim Migration to Abyssinia (615), Journey to at-Ta'if (619), etc.
::The lead section is quite good now, following WP:LS. There is one [citation needed] tag that I've put, but editors didn't update it. I'd like editors to update the tag with one of the references list available.
:(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style → pass
::No visible WP:MOS violation.
:(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided → pass
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
:(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → pass
::References are given and sources are used for the subject.
:(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → can't comment
::There's ongoing heated debate in the Wikiproject Good Article communities about this criterion, whether inline should be required or not. Assume that inline citation is required, this article does not have any problem with it. Inline citations are given in appropriate places.
:(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → pass
::I would like to comment more about this criterion, as some editors are objecting to one or two sources given in this article.
::Questioned sources:
::# Martin Forwards' book: "Muhammad: A Short Biography". Martin Forward is a non Muslim and he has written a lot of books about religions, including "Jesus: A Short Biography" and "Inter-Religious Dialogue". He is a professor of religious studies. Thus, I think no one should doubt his expertise in Islamic study.
::# The Sealed Nectar or al-Raheeq al-Makhtoom (). It is a book about Muhammad biography, authored by a Muslim scholar Saif-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, from Islamic University of Medina. Some editors dissaprove that this is reliable, with their arguments that the author is a Muslim scholar (partisan) and published from Islamic institution, thus it is a religious trait. One of the editor even said "It's blatantly, outrageously, laughably and unequivocally ridiculous, as anyone besides the most incurable partisans of the deeply unscientific POV it advocates will immediately see.". Unfortunately, (s)he didn't give any academic sources to justify this comment.
::::The Sealed Nectar is a legitimate primary source secondary source, accessible to public and according to WP:RS, it can be used as reliable source in WP. Identity and origin of the author is irrelevant. Should reliable source be always from Western scholars? Why can't Muslim or Hindus or Africans or Chinese scholars be reliable? Is it POV? Of course. And so does Pius X's pontificate that serves as the basis of Catholic Encyclopedia. That's why we need other secondary source or tertiary source, which provides commentary, analysis and criticism. 
::::Should an editor raising doubt about The Sealed Nectar, (s)he may bring another source saying that it is unreliable. This has been asked by other editors of this article, but it remains unfulfilled. I've tried to search over the internet, as my source is limited in this subject, and I can't find one. In fact, I've found the opposite situation, where The Sealed Nectar has been awarded and also used as references in many studies.  One editor even listed from a thread above:
::::* "Lewis V. Baldwin in his book "Between Cross & Crescent" Published by University Press of Florida, p.433 lists Sealed Nectar as a biography on Muhammad."
::::* "Mamarinta P Mababaya in his book "International Business Success in a Strange Cultural Environment", where the authors says is the cultural aspect of his PhD thesis carried out at the University of Westminster, quotes "Sealed Nectar" as a biography on Muhammad p.338."
::::Both of studies above, correct me if I'm wrong, have non Muslim names, and thus they are non-partisan.
:(d) it contains no elements of original research → pass
::It's a history about Muhammad as a diplomat. However, I would tend to agree with the RFC commentator to rename this page into Muslim Diplomacy under Muhammad, for example.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
:(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed) → pass
::I don't see any other missing aspects of Muhammad during his lifetime to conduct diplomacy to spread Islam.
:(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia) → pass
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
:(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → weak pass
::I agree with the RFC commentator above. There is no major WP:NPOV violations in this article. This article only presents historical view of Muhammad when conducting diplomacy. Again, I would like to re-iterate the RFC commentator said that identity and origin of the editors are irrelevant. Everybody in Wikipedia is anonymous and can edit any page. The only thing that editors should bring here is that every statements (s)he writes, they should be able to be verified, and this has been given by the editors of this page. All sources are given and they are all good sources, not only just webpages (I've seen worse than this). 
::There are some minor NPOV statements that should be fixed. For example, in the statement "The signing of the constitution itself displayed a degree of diplomatic skill by Muhammad, as although he envisioned a society eventually based upon a religious outlook, practical consideration was needed to be inclusive instead of exclusive of the varying social elements." I would eliminate the part to show a degree of diplomatic skill. Let the reader concludes by him/herself how is the diplomatic skill of Muhammad by reading the article.
:(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic → pass
::Controversies among academic scholars about the authenticity of the letter to Heraclius have been given properly. This is a good example that editors of this article are willing to include criticism about historical facts, whenever academic sources are available.  
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → failed
:This is my main concern about this article for GA status. As soon as this article was put On Hold, one of the editor contacted me. Before I could answer his message, a lengthly discussion had already taken place and edit war started. I've been watching this page history and I have to fail this article for GA because of instability. 
:To all editors of this article, please be constructive and always assume good faith to each other. Let us make Wikipedia a better place, unless if you have an intention to disrupt this article and to block it for being a good article. If this is the case, then I should congratulate you.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
:(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → pass
:(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status → not relevant
Conclusion: fail for GA status for this moment because of criterion (5). If you disagree with my review, then you can always submit this article for re-reviewing. When all matters above are resolved, esp. the ongoing edit war, this article can be renominated again. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree that the article currently fails GA criterion per the stability issue (although disappointingly specific issues have to date not been raised). we are currently attempting to resolve the issue and hope to re-submit afterwards. regarding sealed nectar as a primary source, i understand it is a secondary source as it bases its narrative upon the analysis and evaluation of the primary sources such as bukhari/muslim and the compendiums of tabari, ibn sa'd and others. you can verify this if you check this version of the book online (which includes the footnotes) or if you check out the book on amazon, as well as through the quote given above. i will try to expound upon this in the near future. ITAQALLAH 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. then you're right. I should say Hadith is the primary source and The Sealed Nectar is secondary. — Indon (reply) — 16:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've updated the review. The Sealed Nectar is secondary source. — Indon (reply) — 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: ===NPOV tag===
First up, I'm going to put up the NPOV tag again.  In general, it's bad form to edit war over it when there's still a discussion on-going.  It seems like a lot of the people here have found that there is at least some work that needs to be done to improve the POV of the article, and at least one editor (Proabivouac) feels the article has major POV problems.  There's an RFC up on this artilce (maybe two), so, there is a major discussion on-going. 
But, the NPOV tag isn't a big deal, ya know.  It just alerts readers that there's a discussion on-going and that we could use their opinions.  It doesn't say the article ISN'T NPOV, it doesn't say the article is bad, it just is a little advertisement alerting people that there's a debate on-going, and we could use their help if they are willing to provide it.  It also cautions them to just be aware that they should read a tad more carefully than they would normally, and be a little bit more of a critical thinker than usual.  But, it's really not a black mark on the article.  It's more of a "Help Wanted" sign than anything else.  
It's also not a black mark on the editors here.  I think this article has some problems, but the problems are hard to see because there has been a systematic campaign to disguise the POV that is behind the article.  And there is only one possible explanation for how such a campaign could be undertaken--  namely, a good faith attempt to write NPOVly. :).       The article is very careful not to egregiously violate NPOV, and that's because people are working hard at not doing that.  It's just a hard thing to do.  I often wonder whether ANY one editor or group of editors can actually write NPOV about a subject like this   I know I have had occasions where I've written a page, all the while working as hard and as sincerely as possible to NOT inject any POV into the article.  I've looked over the article, I've said "Okay-- i've got it-- this is perfect.  THIS is NPOV", and then, other editors who have different POVs have been able to point out, correctly, ways in which is wasn't NPOV.  And I had tried REALLY, REALLY hard to make it NPOV.
So, don't stress about the NPOV tag.  it's no biggie.  It doesn't mean the article's bad, it doesn't mean the editors are bad-- it just means we need some work still on assessing the POV of the article. 
===Boring down a narrative===
I see Kirbytime above questioned my advice that the article be "more boring".  I admit, that's kinda odd advice.  Let me explain what I mean by that:   right now, the article very subtly reads a little bit like an wonderful adventure story, where Muhammad is the hero.  It's a straightforward narrative-- not a synthesis.  It "tells a story", rather than "talks about a subject".  So yeah, BORING isn't exactly the best word, but 'much less like a narrative' is hard to say.    
Take for example this paragraph from the Journey to at-Ta'if section:
:The reason for Muhammad directing his efforts towards at-Ta'if may have been due to the lack of positive response from the people of Mecca to his message until then.   In rejection of his message, and fearing that there would be reprisals from Mecca for having hosted Muhammad, the groups involved in meeting with Muhammad began to incite townfolk to pelt him with stones.[3] Having been beset and pursued out of at-Ta'if, Muhammad, who at one stage was bleeding profusely, sought refuge in a nearby orchard. It is here that he invoked Allah, seeking comfort and protection.
Now, I have to say, I doubt very seriously every word of that is a fact.  It speculates about Muhammad's motives and the motives of the groups meeting with Muhammad.  It talks about how much Muhammad was bleeding, and even describes the location of where he rested.  In talking about this, it describes it as if these things were universally agreed facts which are just as historically agreed upon as, saying "Abraham Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater".  I suspect, though I'm no expert, that we really don't have a level of detail sufficient to say with near-certainly that Muhammad rested  in, say, an orchard.  The article presents this as an indisputed fact, but I doubt it truly is one.  I suspect that it's a story that's been handed down through oral and written traditions, that many people believe it to be "completely accurate", many people believe it to be "mostly accurate", and some people believe it to be "very historically inaccurate".  That's just the way things go with things that are so far back in history-- usually that level of detail simply isn't preserved-- at least not with certainty.  So while everyone might agree that Muhammad lived in the 7th century, the idea that "Muhammad, bleeding profusely, took refuge in an orchard" probably isn't a universally agreed-upon fact, even though the article currently presents it as such.
And the important thing is-- this is true of the article as a whole.  It's not just the "bleeding in the orchard" at issue-- pretty much the whole article conveys "The Story of Muhammed" as if it's a cohesive narrative, written by an eye-witness.  The problem with this article is, reading over it, I don't know what parts to believe.  I don't know WHO says these things are true, how universally agreed upon they are, etc.  Some things probably are univerally acknowledge to be true (The Conquest of Mecca).  Other things it's probably hard to say ("Rested in an orchard").  Some things are probably unknowable (people's thoughts are conveyed, for example).  All these different types of info are fine, but here, I have no idea where one type ends and the other begins.  They're all mixed in, and I don't know what's what.  So-- what can we do about this:   
===The Scholarly/Historical Solution===
Now, one solution would be to insert a lot more differing viewpoints throughout the article-- at way more criticism.  Cut out many of the details that are from only one or two sources, or else RIGIDLY attribute them to speciifc sources whenever you discuss them.  If there are conflicting views, or people who doubt a sentence is true, you have to actively work on including those dissenting views.  
You'd also have to work hard to describe things neutrally.  The current article isn't just "about Muhammad", it's actually "from Muhammad's point of view"-- notice in the example above, that "The people of at-Ta'if reject Muhammad's message" and "Muhammad's enemies incite the townspeople to stone him" is from Muhammad's POV.  A similarly POV statement taking the townfolks POV might be "Mohammad's words, deemed as heretical by the townspeople, incited them to pelt him with stones". 
You see what I mean?  this tells A story and A POV, as it should, but it's just one side of a story for which there are many many sides.  And one way to solve this problem is to massively cut back the disputed material and add in a lot of other voices.  
===The "According to" Solution
But on the other hand, it seems like the current text DOES do a good job of telling part of the story of muhammad, as presented by some sources.  If aren't we really missing the point if we start trying to hold this article  up to the level of modern historical scholarship (debating, for example, whether we really know Mohammad was bleeding profusely, or whether we can really be sure that he took refuge in an orchard).  This story  does a good job of telling ONE point of view-- possibly the only surviving point of view (for example-- do we have any sources about what the people of at-Ta'if thought about their encounter with Muhammad?).  If we start inserting all these conflicting viewpoints into the text, maybe we're taking something that does a good job to telling a story and instead turn it into something that doesn't tell that story nearly as well, because it's diluted and interrupted by criticism and debate and etc.
   
So, the other solution, which I'm actually starting to think might be really useful here, would be to to specify an article wide source, and call it "Muslim Views of Diplomacy under Muhammad" or something like that.  This would allow us to essentially saying upfront: "This is the way its presented in many of the sources, and these are the sources we're going to be using in writing this article, so that we can summarize for the reader the CONTENT of those sources, without having to incessantly introduced debates about the validity of that content". 
I've had a lot of luck using this approach in summarizing biblical content (see Herod_the_Great#Herod_in_the_New_Testament and Acts_of_the_Apostles#Summary).   There, you specify upfront the source, and the straightforwardly convey that source, and possibly briefly summarize other views about the source as a whole, or highlight some of the other views about the material conveyed in the source. 
If we do something like that, all our NPOV problems instantly disappear, because we upfront say we're presenting on POV, and now we just have to NPOVly present THAT one POV.
--Alecmconroy 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: Now, one solution would be to insert a lot more differing viewpoints throughout the article-- at way more criticism.  Cut out many of the details that are from only one or two sources, or else RIGIDLY attribute them to speciifc sources whenever you discuss them.  If there are conflicting views, or people who doubt a sentence is true, you have to actively work on including those dissenting views.  
You'd also have to work hard to describe things neutrally.  The current article isn't just "about Muhammad", it's actually "from Muhammad's point of view"-- notice in the example above, that "The people of at-Ta'if reject Muhammad's message" and "Muhammad's enemies incite the townspeople to stone him" is from Muhammad's POV.  A similarly POV statement taking the townfolks POV might be "Mohammad's words, deemed as heretical by the townspeople, incited them to pelt him with stones". 
You see what I mean?  this tells A story and A POV, as it should, but it's just one side of a story for which there are many many sides.  And one way to solve this problem is to massively cut back the disputed material and add in a lot of other voices.  
===The "According to" Solution
But on the other hand, it seems like the current text DOES do a good job of telling part of the story of muhammad, as presented by some sources.  If aren't we really missing the point if we start trying to hold this article  up to the level of modern historical scholarship (debating, for example, whether we really know Mohammad was bleeding profusely, or whether we can really be sure that he took refuge in an orchard).  This story  does a good job of telling ONE point of view-- possibly the only surviving point of view (for example-- do we have any sources about what the people of at-Ta'if thought about their encounter with Muhammad?).  If we start inserting all these conflicting viewpoints into the text, maybe we're taking something that does a good job to telling a story and instead turn it into something that doesn't tell that story nearly as well, because it's diluted and interrupted by criticism and debate and etc.
   
So, the other solution, which I'm actually starting to think might be really useful here, would be to to specify an article wide source, and call it "Muslim Views of Diplomacy under Muhammad" or something like that.  This would allow us to essentially saying upfront: "This is the way its presented in many of the sources, and these are the sources we're going to be using in writing this article, so that we can summarize for the reader the CONTENT of those sources, without having to incessantly introduced debates about the validity of that content". 
I've had a lot of luck using this approach in summarizing biblical content (see Herod_the_Great#Herod_in_the_New_Testament and Acts_of_the_Apostles#Summary).   There, you specify upfront the source, and the straightforwardly convey that source, and possibly briefly summarize other views about the source as a whole, or highlight some of the other views about the material conveyed in the source. 
If we do something like that, all our NPOV problems instantly disappear, because we upfront say we're presenting on POV, and now we just have to NPOVly present THAT one POV.
--Alecmconroy 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Scholarly/Historical Solution