Talk:Banu Qaynuqa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Dispute
The discussion of the dispute surrounding this article is taking place, at Talk:Banu Nadir. Please see. Publicola 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Copyvio
I've looked at the repeated insertions here, and found the what Publicola is inserting has partly been taken word for word from [1]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Yes I understand that the original is in public domain. However, no article here links to the original, or uses the publication information of the original for a reference. Instead, they all link to jewishencyclopdia.com, which notes in its terms of use, "3.2 You may search, retrieve, display, download, and print content from the Service solely for your personal, internal use, and shall make no other use of the content without the express written permission of JE.com and the copyright owner (or its authorized agent) of such content." My point is that while a reference to the orginal publication information is ok, using the website as the only one is not, as they have made a claim of copyright. Its a technical legal thing and easily fixed if someone digs up the orginal publication information and refers to that instead. (HINT - I just told you how to fix this). pschemp | talk 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
While I agree that the original publication info should be used, the website has no claim of copyright over the text of the article. JE.com's "terms of use" have no legal force vis a vis the text of various articles, over which they are barred by copyright law from claiming any rights. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Mediation
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)
[edit] A tangental thought
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)
[edit] pov
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)
[edit] Unprotect?
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)
- Unprotected.Voice-of-All 06:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks, Pecher
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)
[edit] Further Changes
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)
Apparently somebody went back in time and interviewed each of the converts as to the reasons behind their individual conversions. Without really saying much more, I'd simply like to get supporting documentation on this, that's all. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, and with all due respect...do you honestly believe that you or anyone has the authority to factually ascertain the motivations behind the conversion of some of the tribe's members, or for that matter even any motivations of Muhammad or anyone else? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim...so at the risk of starting another revert/edit-war, I still maintain that this assertion is highly dubious. Make the reversion if you must...just prove it...is that too much to ask? --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
