Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza

• Are the words massacre or execution neutral in this context?

Things that may be important for this discussion: Are we writing with WP:NPOV in mind? Do sources use these words or are we using these words to describe the incident? Does this give undue weight to a minority view or do many sources use this terminology?

Please briefly state your opinion about the use of these words and your basis for that opinion. Just as a reminder, lets try to stick to the topic and not discuss each other whenever possible. Shell ^babelfish 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Aminz

Here was my position:

• I think usage of the terms like "massacre" or "execution" does not add any real information to the article once we have mentioned that they were killed and the number that were killed.
• The common meanings of the term "massacre" and its connotations imply illegitimacy. One can find the meaning of the term here [2]: "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly" - The term originally comes from the Old French macecle, macecre meaning butchery, shambles. It has the killing cruelly connotation.

(Added at 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)) I provided the meaning of "massacre" from American Heritage dictionary above. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:"The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this."[3]--Be happy!! (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please see the usage of the term "massacre" in the Bible translations showing that the term is not neutral: [4]

(Added at 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC))- Since they are many instances of mass killing in the Bible, this shows, in my mind, the translator considers the term non-neutral. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions provides a guildline for usage of terms like "massacre" for the article titles but I think is applicable here too: "the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate". In part 3 it says: "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." This is further explain here: A generally accepted word on how to describe the event means there is consensus on the applicability of the word amongst scholars in the real world.[5] This is not the case here. This incident has no common name and depending on the author, the reliable sources use terms like execution, punishment and massacre. All of the terms like "execution", "punishment" and "massacre" imply legitimacy or illegitimacy. The neutral word to use is "killing"

(21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)) The phrase "does not carry POV implications" in the policy, I believe, confirms that the term has "POV implication" - The term can be also "focus of heated debate" --Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• A list of academic sources that mention execution can be found here [6]. In my view execution and massacre are both judgmental terms and both should be avoided and instead killing be used although this is not something everybody agrees with. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Str1977

• Is the word "massacre" accurate? Yes, as a great mass of people were killed.
• Is it neutral? I think, in the end, yes because it accurately describes the even better than any other word. That massacres are not seen as positive things today by most people is a matter of judgment on their part. That doesn't make the term in itself POV.
• Certainly, the term does not imply illegitimacy.
• However, since there are concerns about the term being problematic, I have already reduced its usage to its minimum, three occurences: the title of the picture (which reflects that the event indeed has a common name), a quote, the title of a link and the headline for the section describing the massacre. In places were a verb was need I have replaced it with variations on kill.
• Yes, the term is used by academic sources to describe the event. And importantly, it is the only term that describes the whole thing. "Aftermath" really does not work and "Execution" ...
• "Execution", strictly speaking, begs the question of what is executed? The verdict is executed. Execution also implies that there was some sort of formal verdict resulting from a trial - which is not the case here (and punishment is worse on this account). Therefore I reject the term no matter how many sources use it. There is no Wiki-policy that requires us to follow a majority on this (and as stated, massacre is used as well).
• Keep in mind that because "massacre" apart from occurences that are quotes is included only once, it is only this one occasion (the section headline) that can be subject to the dispute.
• Bible translations are not relevant here. They are (good or bad) translations of existing texts), not encyclopedic articles newly written. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Bless sins

Massacre is used in three instances. I dispute its use in all instances (in this case to be used in the lead) but two (its usage in the title of a painting, and its usage in an Ibn Ishaq quote).

Massacre

I assert that the term is non-neutral. To back up my claims, I refer to:

• Oxford dictionary ('...a brutal slaughter')
• American Heritage dictionary ('...cruelly')
• Merriam-Webster dictionary ('...atrocity or cruelty', 'a cruel or wanton murder')
• Chambers reference ('cruel and indiscriminate killing...')
• Dictionary at Encarta ('the vicious killing...')

• Collins English dictionary('savage killing...'){Added 04:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs)

Most users will find that the accusation of cruelty, brutality and viciousness is not neutral.

Another problem with the word 'massacre' is that, like 'execution', it doesn't describe the entire event. The word 'massacre' ignores the fact that women and children were not killed.

Execution

This term is certainly accurate, and is widely in use. To back up this assertion, I have compiled a list of 19 academic and reliable sources.

Str1977 disputes its neutrality, but has not substantiated his/her assertions with any sources. Nevertheless, for the sake of compromise, I have omitted the word entirely from the article.

Bless sins (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Jedi Master MIK

I'll try to be short and simple seeing as most of the points seem to have been stated:

• Massacre by definition is POV, I do not see why we have at least all been able to agree to that.
• Execution while still not necessarily encompassing the whole issue is much more NPOV and implies a lot less.
• Execution points to execution of decisions as well as the execution of the BQ men.
• Killing I have no problem with either though yes I do realize that it only gives part of the final results.
• Aftermath I have no problem with as it is general and NPOV as possible when giving the situation though yes I realize that it could only work for the title.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on a compromise

• It looks like at least two of you agree that the word "massacre" should stay in the picture caption since the word there is part of the proper name of the painting. Can everyone agree that the word is acceptable there to describe the image?
• There's also a split about using the word "massacre" or "execution" elsewhere. One suggestion has been using variants of "kill". I also noticed in the lead that specific terms have been used, such as "beheading". Could another compromise be changing the heading "Siege and massacre" to something more specific, perhaps, "Siege and Judgment by Muhammad" which avoids the use of descriptive terms all together? What other creative compromises would you accept? Shell ^babelfish 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If the name of the painting includes "massacre" (it is originally a Persian miniature) then I have no problem with its addition.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what BS claims, I have not disputed the neutrality of the term "execution" but more its accuracy. Execution of what? It is strictly speaking not accurate to speak of the execution of people - verdicts are executed. The one dimension where neutrality is infringed is the issue that if a judgement is executed, it presumes not only the guilt of those killed but also that there actually has been a trial. Of course, that argument doesn't go very far as of course not only judgements and verdicts can be executed but also orders for killing. But still, it is something that is executed, not someone. And finally: in our disputed passage, the section heading, "Siege and execution" would mean "Siege and how it was executed" and that is nonsense.

"Judgement" is unacceptable - again because it assumes both the guilt of the BQ and the existence of a trial where there was none. (And BTW, nominally the decision came not from Muhammad, who only endorsed it.)

The points raised by BS above do not hold water in my book: yes, massacres are often considered cruel etc. but that's not part of the denotation but a reflection of the current common opinion that such acts are cruel. We do not hide the facts just because they are considered bad nowadays. Exterminating the word "massacre" is hiding the fact.

BS has also stated that massacre would be inaccurate because not all BQ were killed. Well, this argument defeats all variations on "kill" and "behead". It does not defeat massacre as the BQ in a substantial part (their men) were subject to a massacre - a massacre of the BQ does not mean that all tribe members were killed.

Thus far I have seen no suitable term that could replace "massacre" in the section heading. All mentioned terms do not work as they are either inaccurate, POV or don't work for linguistic reasons (Siege and killing).

And until that request for an equally suitable alternative is met, I cannot agree to any alternative. After all, I already bent over backwards and compromised on half a dozen occurences of "massacre" in the article. There remains only one occurence (outside of quotes)

So, frankly, Shell, if you cannot find another word that does the trick, mediation should focus on other issues. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its up to all of you to find something that "does the trick", I'm just here to help keep the discussion on track and make suggestions where I can. I'm not sure if you realize, but you're coming across as rather upset over the whole situation. I know that content problems can be very frustrating, but the more calm everyone can stay, the more likely we can work through these problems.

Sure, once I come up with a fitting alternative, I will speak up. But those far my reflections have yielded nothing that could replace "massacre". Str1977 ^(talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Couple of comments about words people are considering.

• Massacre is specific to killing that is indiscriminate and cruel. [7]
• Execution can mean performing capital punishment [8] in addition to other meanings.
• Judgment requires someone making a decision, so if Muhammad only endorsed the idea, my phrase was completely incorrect. [9]

Is there any other way we could describe the outcome of the siege? Can anyone come up with language that would include both the death of the men and the enslavement of the women and children? Shell ^babelfish 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: Is it possible to split the "siege and massacre" section into two sections, one on "siege" and the other "aftermath"? --Be happy!! (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Shell you were incorrect when you said "judgment by Muhammad", since Muhammad didn't pronounce the judgment. There, was, however, a judgment, and it was pronounced by S'ad ibn Mu'adh. The prophet certainly approved of the judgment. How about "Siege and judgment"?Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Str1977:

• Both judgments/decisions and people were executed and so it does indeed encompass a greater amount of the event than massacre.
• Nothing in the definition of execution assume definite guilt. If it does anything of the like, it only assumes that those who performed the execution probably considered the executed as guilty which they did. Its not infringement of NPOV though.
• On the contrary, it would only imply that if you left it uncapitalized; the capitalization would show it to be a separate part of the incident.
• Again there is nothing in the definition of judgment that is assumptive. It is a decision of what is the proper coarse of action considered by the judge, i.e. the Muslims; only this and nothing more.
• I'd say 4-5 dictionaries describing massacre as is and 19+ sources using anything but massacre as proper denotation of the event is a little more than "current common opinion". Consider that with the fact that there are positive and negative views of the incident, it is definitely not "fact".
• Massacre hasn't defeated words like "Execution" and "Judgment" however; you may still say they are inefficient and POV as well but they are still not to the extent that the word "Massacre" is and so for now that's what is important, choosing the lesser of 2-3 evils.

Aminz:

• Good suggestion, didn't think about that one before and I think it it would work well for the title part of the dispute at least.
• Unfortunately the word "Massacre" appears in the body paragraphs as well and so the dispute would still continue.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• "If it does anything of the like, it only assumes that those who performed the execution probably considered the executed as guilty which they did." Completely agreed. Not all execution are just, and many are fiercely disputed. See "Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution" for examples. The only thing execution would imply is that S'ad and Muhammad both considered the Qurayza to be guilty - which is fact.Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mik,

• "Judgement" is POV not only because it assumes the guilt of those killed, it assumes that there was a trial and deliberation of whether they were guilty. Nothing of the sort happened. There was deliberation between two parties - Muhammad and certain Aus members - about what to do with the BQ. Therefore BS' comment "Not all execution (sic!) are just, and many are fiercely disputed." may well be true but misses the point that all executions are the results of a verdict. We have no verdict here.
• Nothing in the definition of massacre assumes cruelty, regardless of whether the treatment of the BQ was cruel. As for "indiscriminate", the treatment definitely was just that as all men were killed regardless of their actions. And all women and children were enslaved, regardless of their actions.
• What does "*On the contrary, it would only imply that if you left it uncapitalized" mean? What are you talking about. I will not argue about trivialities like capitalization.
• Re Aminz, it doesn't matter whether we split the section or keep it as one - the wording "aftermath" is needlessly obscure. Contrary to Mik, the word massacre only appears (thanks to my unrewarded attempts at compromise) only in quotes and in the section header. Quotes cannot be changed so there remains only the section header. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that all but one party agrees that the word "massacre" is not appropriate for use in the article, but everyone feels that using the word massacre in the picture description is acceptable, assuming that is the proper name for the painting.
• It looks like more than one editor feels that execution may be an acceptable alternative. Could everyone agree to this word as a solution? Shell ^babelfish 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977

• Only in the context of "Law" does the dictionary say that judicial proceedings are necessary for judgment to be proper, otherwise all other parts of the definition of the word judgment are fine. And again, nothing in the word implies guilt beyond what the judger thought according to his/her decision. If there is, I implore you to cite it.
• mas·sa·cre

1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
3. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

• The mediator was even clear about it above that the word implies cruelty.
• Indiscriminate implies that there was no set standard and everything was random choice. However there was a standard: all men of fighting age in one group and women/children in the other; there is nothing in the definition of indiscriminate which says that choosing by actions makes it discriminate.
• You argued saying "execution" would imply execution of the siege. I said it would not do that if you captilize the word b/c then it would imply that it is talking about 2 separate issues of the event, the Siege and the Execution (of decisions and people) that followed.
• If you put it in quotes while in the article, that in itself implies the article is taking sides and would be equivilant to saying "so-called". Apparently there are people who believe it to be a massacre but its not everyone and so thats why it can't be used.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• I cannot accept your claims about the meaning of the word massacre.
• capitalization is an often abused phenomenon in the English language. In our case, it certainly is not clear enough to denote what you are intending. "Siege and e/Execution" means "siege and how it is/was executed"
• I only put quotes in quotes. That is not taking sides.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977

• Good I'm not asking you to; I'm asking you to accept the dictionaries' and mediator's "claims".
• Abused, maybe; efficient, definitely.
• Phenomenon o_O???
• I also suggested/explained judgment and answered/rebutted your concerns on it.
•  ??? Thats not much of a compromise then; in fact if the quotes aren't there in the original quoted statement, then its changing the original cited material which defeats the purpose of the quotes.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that amounts to the same thing. You are loading stuff unto the word that is not actually part of its substance.
• Abused, sure. Efficient: no way. Silly: yes.
• Contradiction is not rebuttal. My objections stand.
• What are you talking about? We quote statements/titles and we have to quote them accurately. Are you saying the quotes are not accurate?

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I cannot accept your claims about the meaning of the word massacre.". Then accept the claims made by six dictionaries that I provided. I honestly don't understand where the problem is. We have provided you with evidence from dictionaries that massacre implies cruelty (and a host of other POV meanings), yet you still don't accept this. Why?
• Why not "Siege and aftermath"? Aftermath would include judgment, killing, enslavement, and conversion.Bless sins (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I will not accept your claims which you make by (mis)using these dictionaries. Get it?
• Why do you ask this for the 50th time when you are quite aware that it is way too vague to be useful.
• The only alternative I can think of right now is to separate the massacre part and call it "demise of the BQ". Would you accept this?

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Misuse"??? Please explain how. It's really difficult to misuse a dictionary. The entries are straightforward, and I've provided the link for you. I really want to know the basis for your allegation that I'm misusing the dictionary.
• If we have to separate the section why not call it "execution"? In anycase, it will be difficult to separate the execution. Are we going to put enslavement in another section? Before the execution part?Bless sins (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BS,

• because you are alleging that things are only commonly associated with the term (because they often occur alongside with them and because our times considers massacres cruel) are the substance of the term.
• It doesn't make sense if you constantly refer to terms you know to be unacceptable to me. I could as well ask you again and again "why not accept massacre". If we use "demise" we do not need another section as the enslavement is part of this. BTW, "execution" does not properly cover the enslavement either, quite regardless of whether we split or not. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977

• I specifically cited the words in the dictionary itself which show w/o a shadow of a doubt that cruelty is part of massacre. Are you going to call that common associations and allegations too?
• Demise? Hmmm, not bad. The tribe was effectively disintegrated in more ways than one and also demise IIRC implies finishing and coming to a close. BS, what do you think?

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regroup

Lets try to focus on words that we can all agree on. Neither massacre or execution was acceptable to everyone, so lets go ahead and drop those for now. A new suggestion that came up was the idea of splitting the section in to two parts, suggested labels were Siege and Aftermath. Is this a possible solution? If not, what new words can we come up with that might resolve this issue? Shell ^babelfish 21:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Str1977 just came up with a new one: "demise". As far as I can tell, for now, it is a very reasonable replacement and should be considered. Now lets wait to see what the others think. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed by the fact that 19 reliable sources aren't enough to substantiate a neutral word. Isn't wikipedia supposed to work by verifiability?

Regarding other suggestions, demise essentially means death, so It's reasonable for it use as a replacement for execution or massacre.[10] However, we still need a term to describe the overall event, including the death, enslavement and conversion. I prefer 'aftermath', does anyone have a better term? But if we will replace a term for which there are 19 reliable sources, the term must be absolutely perfect.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is only a conflict because you reject utterly a word by reliable sources too, so don't try to paint this into black and white.

What do you say about "demise"? It does not mean death but a process of great negative impact on someone.

Aftermath is an empty word. It is also inaccurate and POV in a way, as it basically says that the massacre is of no great importance, only a postscriptum to more important events. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment below Str. --Be happy!! (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins:

• Well more generally speaking (according to dictionary.com) "demise" can mean "termination" like "termination of an empire". Everything which happened in the aftermath of the siege guaranteed the effective "death" and "termination" of Banu Qurayza tribe as one: its men (heads of tribe and families) were killed, the families as a community were separated up, and over time most if not all became Muslim or settled back into the Medinan and other Arabian community (yes, there were still Jews in Medina after all tribes were exiled.

Str1977:

• If you're referring to authors who use the word in their writing, again there are plenty of authors however that don't use it. Therefore when theres an obvious disagreement in language, one must refer to dictionaries to find which side is most correct in its choice of words. So, in conclusion, the word of 19 dictionaries does indeed outweigh that of what some authors say.
• The word massacre however goes back again to the 2 arguments he's been posting over and over, that it not only talks about one part of the event only but also, according to 19 dictionaries on the English language and its usage, is POV.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• regarding your first part (directed towards BS), I totally agree.
• but regarding the second part (in reply to me), I think you are mixing up your own stuff - you didn't quote 10 dictionaries but six. You are also wrong about "outweighing" as dictionaries are not competent on historical issues like this - they only define words, some better, some worse, but that's all they do - and the fact that historians use the M-word nonetheless cannot be held against either the M-word or these historians, regardless of which choice for a section header we take here.

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Str that aftermath is better to be avoided since it implies that the mass killing is only a postscriptum to more important events. How does "Siege and Mass killing" sound?--Be happy!! (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing about "killing"/"massacre"/"execution" is that they tell half the story. Half the people (women and children) were not killed/massacred/executed but lived on. I think its not appropriate to ignore women and children, and only consider men.Bless sins (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "Siege and Mass killing of adult males" ? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is unwieldy. We need something short. And of course it only tells half the story (though surely it is the more gruesome half). Str1977 ^(talk) 13:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. It is POV to magnify the "gruesome" details, as it paints the event as cruel.Bless sins (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be funny if it weren't so disgusting. 600+ killed are not a "detail". This reply unfortunately makes clear where some people stand and why they want to replace the M-word by more sanitizing or vague words. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977

• K then.
• 10? He said 19. Even with only 6 or 10, thats more than 3.
• We're talking about how its defined in the present b/c we are people in the present defining past events and the dictionaries give the present definition.
• And the repeated rebuttal to that argument is that there are also plenty of historians that apparently don't use the "M-word".

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And the "repeated rebuttal" is of no consequence as mere non-usage of the word doesn't in no way force us to not use, let alone reject it and eradicate it from all places. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Jedi, I said we have 19 sources that support "execution". There are 6 sources that show "massacre" is POV. In either case, there are loads of sources supporting the change from "massacre" to "execution". But Str1977 is ignoring these sources.Bless sins (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, BS.

We have 19 "sources" that use "execution" (or variations on that stem like "executing"), we have other "sources" that use "massacre".

We have six dictionaries provided by BS for the definition of massacre, though non of these dictate that "massacre" is POV.

BS, if you claim there are "sources supporting the change", I can always say that there are "sources" supporting the opposite. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to have reached an impasse here, lets move on to some of the other issues up for discussion. Shell ^babelfish 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, we did finally get to a word that Str1977 and I think work. Bless sins didn't ever respond to the explanatory support I gave of the word after he gave his doubts so we never got to see his further thoughts on the issue. Otherwise, the only reason he and I were still debating with Str1977 was b/c I can't help sometimes letting something go unanswered >_>. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can at least focus on other things until BS makes up his mind. Anyway, I cannot think of another alternative to the current text except the word I proposed. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should move to another issue without coming to some sort of conclusion. This does not mean that we keep discussing until we solve this. It only means we state the progress we've made by discussing this in a mediation. This progress can then be used as a starting point for when we next start the discussion on this. I propose we agree to the following points:

• Any word has to take into account the fates of the men, women and children.
• The definition of "massacre" (as found in dictionaries, see:[11][12]) commonly implies cruelty, brutality, viciousness, savagery, atrocity etc. Such implications are an opinion, not facts.
• "Demise" appears to be the most agreeable term, and should be used at least temporarily, while other issues are resolved.

Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I will accept the inclusion of "demise" only as a compromise which you have to accept BS as the permanent solution. The problem I had and have with you has always been your (IMHO) way of taking what I give for granted and then keep on pushing for more.

It is your choice, take "demise" or leave "massacre". You can't have it both ways. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

While his tone does not sound agreeable (hard to tell on the internet) he's got a point Bless sins. "Demise" includes more than execution, is not as POV or at all POV as massacre, and it does not downplay the end result of the siege. I say lets go with it; if you want to continue to argue points on other words that we never quite finished up above, you can pester Str1977 on his user talk page all you want (j/k ;-)). Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So have I. I went to the trouble of providing 19 scholarly sources, yet for the sake of compromise, I have stopped insisting the use of "execution". I never said that "demise" was to be a temporary solution. But I said demise is to be at least a temporary solution. It can be a more permanent solution - I never objected to that. I have changed my proposal above, so that we use demise now. But the other components of the proposal I insist upon.Bless sins (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, as for your "compromising" attitude, you never compromised in the least on the actual issues, which were not "execution" but "massacre", the word you wanted to eradicate.

As for temporary solutions, I will have none of them. Either you accept "demise" as a permanent solution (which I would suggest) or you don't. So I am asking you now: Can we all agree on "Demise of the Banu Qurayza" as the permanent title of a section covering the massacre of the BQ? Str1977 ^(talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good God yes, end this madness. And just an FYI, Bless sins did say he agrees to use demise. As for his proposal, I have no clue what he's referring but I assume its just the general body of arguments being mediated here. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Mik, I am going out of my way and suppose that "demise" is now the definite (not temporary) consensus wording, agreeable to you, me and BS, even though he has not given the answer expected of him to settle this.

I am doing this for two reasons:

• I do not want to drag this along and possibly pester BS with constant questioning about it.
• Another editor, outside of this mediation, is addressing the same issue. I do not want to keep him waiting articially.

However, let's make one thing clear. If BS or anyone else (on the anti-massacre side) touches the new section header, I will conclude that demise isn't consensus after all. Otherwise, I will defend it on the article.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Only supposing? I thought it is or it isn't.

What is out of your way? Am I to assume you still consider massacre to be the best choice of words despites numerous people and sources objections to its use?

Who do you consider to be part of the anti-massacre side beside me and Bless sins?

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If Str1977 and Jedi Master agree, I would like to also discuss this issue at the same time. This is issue has also been discussed on the article's talk page as a result of an RfC that I filed.

The issue was listed as:

Should Tariq Ramadan, Abu Nimer, Majid Khadduri, Daniel C. Peterson and Serjeant be used as sources?

Recently I posted an request for comment that dealt with two of the above sources: Abu Nimer and Majid Khadduri. So far two users have replied, and both said that it seems ok to use these sources.

I'll list the sources here:

• Ramadan, Tariq, In the Footsteps of the Prophet. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 146

Tariq Ramadan was a lecturer in Religion and Philosophy at the University of Fribourg and the College de Saussure, Geneva, Switzerland; he is currently teaching at St Antony's College at the University of Oxford.

Oxford University Press is a prestigious publishing house (if you need more details ask, but I assume you all agree with me on this).

• Khadduri, Majid (1955). War And Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Khadduri was a professor at Indiana University, the University of Chicago, and at Johns Hopkins University. He founded the Middle East studies program at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[13]

Johns Hopkins Press, the publisher of the book, is an academic university press.

• Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2000-2001). "A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam". Journal of Law and Religion 15 (1-2): 247

Mohammed Abu-Nimer is a professor at the American University's School of International Service. His research includes "Islam, nonviolence and peace", "Religion and peace", "Culture and peace and conflict resolution."

"The Journal of Law and Religion is an interfaith, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed English language academic and professional journal devoted to issues that engage both theology and law."[14]

• Peterson, Daniel C. (2007), Muhammad: the prophet of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, p. 127

Daniel C. Peterson is professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

The book has been reviewed (and endorsed) by professor Khaleel Mohammed of San Diego University.

• Serjeant, R. B., "The "Sunnah Jami'ah, Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the "Tahrim" of Yathrib: Analysis and Translation of the Documents Comprised in the So-Called Constitution of Medina", in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 41 (1978), p. 1-42.

Robert Bertram Serjeant (late) was a professor of Arabic and Director of Middle East Centre at the University of Cambridge. [15]

The publisher, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, is considered "of the highest academic standard", and is published by the Cambridge University Press. [16][17]

I justify the reliability of these sources on a few points:

• They are reliable since they have been written by university professors and scholars.
• Some are published by university presses.
• One is published by a peer-reviewed academic journal.
• One has been reviewed and endorsed by another professor.

Bless sins (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree if you are misprepresenting the issue again, BS. The issue is not wether to include them but how and how far.

Should authors be quoted beyond their field is the issue in the case of Abu Nimer.

And should me recycle any wording from a man like Mr Ramadan who - to put it mildly - has a problematic record.

I did not see any issue about Peterson or Serjeant so far.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright if you think the authors aren't a problem, just "how far" they are used, bring each change in piece by piece and then we can deliberate on whether they are quoted "beyond their field" or not. And this time I'll be more involved in it too, I think I kind of missed the boat last time and from the looks of how it was going, no offense to either side but it looked like both of you were side tracking being too general/vague, at least IMHO.

Regarding Ramadan, if you're referring to that time you and another user accused him of being anti-jew, I still have no clue how he was being discriminatory in anyway. As far as I could tell from whatever kept getting sourced from him on the talk and actual page, he gave no indication of animosity towards jews or judaism, just possible reason for action taken in the past by other people as every other author/historian does thats quoted in the BQ article. In fact, I could make the same or similar allegation(s) against such authors as Stillman and Rodinson from what I've read in their works. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Ramadan can be (and has been) corrected by simply not quoting him verbatim (anyway a bad habit of some people). We can include the gist of what he's saying without the anti-Jewish (in this case here) bent.

As far as other writers are concerned, we would not quote a vitriolic outburst by them, would we?

Now, the main problem I see is that of an author being quoted beyond his field: Abu Nimer is no historian but expert in dispute resolution models. He quotes the BQ meditian and depicts it like the BQ had agreed to mediation with Muhammad. However, the facts are according to all hitherto presented sources that the other party was the Banu Aus and the BQ mere objects of the mediation. If Abu Nimer quotes some hitherto unknown historian, we can as well quote that historian (but thus far BS has refused to give information about that) but he might as well just made a mistake. That doesn't impact his research as he only covers models, but it impacts our article.

BS of course denies the issue and above omits the field these scholars were professor of or what qualifications they have, preferring to include the less important information of where they are/were professor. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand what you mean by that; does he write honorifics towards the Muslims so it would be violating NPOV to quote verbatim? Also, I still don't see how he was being anti-Jew (mind you, I didn't read what he said verbatim in his writing so maybe thats where you say he's anti-Jew).
• Whose quoting vitriolic outbursts by authors? I didn't see any when I looked through the changes Bless Sins wanted.
• You know I saw the same thing several other authors too, one of whom I think was Martin Lings. And technically speaking, by surrendering to Muhammad they agreed to mediation by him. However, the Aus according to all sources given intervened and said they wanted to be the decider since they were previously allies to BQ.
• Oh really? Look at it again, the bolded parts in particular. Pardon me for fiddling with your post Bless Sins, I'm not changing your post, just highlighting the finer points which Str1977 missed.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I find Str1977's position to be unclear. Str1977 can you please put a 'yes' or 'no' beside each of the following sources. A 'yes' indicates that you think it meets WP:SOURCES and WP:RS to be used specifically in the article Banu Qurayza.

• Abu Nimer._____
• Journal of law and religion.____
• Tariq Ramadan.____
• Majid Khadduri.____
• Serjeant, R. B.____
• Daniel C. Peterson.____

Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I will not. You are trying my patience, go and read what I wrote. The issue is not Yes or No to any of these source - the issue is when and how. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You question each sources' scholarship and area of expertise, even though Bless Sins clearly stated each his own, and then you expect him to think this is not a question of yes or no? Now please, respond to my response to you so we can continue this mediation. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Shell can you jump in here? Is asking Str1977 to simply answer the above question too much to ask?Bless sins (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins, please, he has answered the question, it is not that some are unreliable or not, and I realize that there seems to be contradiction in what he says later about that but let him give a response to it first. Oh and yes, Shell's help in this matter would be much appreciated. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If he has answered the question, can you tell me if Str1977 thinks these sources are reliable on the topic of Banu Qurayza or not?Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well he says above that he does not have a problem with the sources themselves, just how, where, and when they're used. But as far as I can tell there isn't anything they should have a problem telling on the BQ page. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of Mik, let me quickly comment:

• Ramadan, Tariq

Is a lecturer in religion, not history. His comments may be included with care as opinion, NOT as historical research. And we have to tread with care because of his language.

• Khadduri, Majid

Seems all right. However, we still lack what the area of expertise is missing (much more relevant information than telling me about Oxford University).

• Mohammed Abu-Nimer

His expertise is not history hence he is not suitable for referencing historical facts, especially if they are contradicted by other sources.

• Peterson, Daniel C.

There's nothing wrong with him, at least not in general.

• Serjeant, R. B.

Or with him.

Re Khadduri and Abu-Nimer there is the question; what happens if some sources (one of the clearly not qualified) claim something in contradiction to the other sources? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ramadan, Tariq

When studying religion there is also usually a good amount of history of that religion involved as well, particularly when the history of the religion in question has a great amount of implication on said religion.

• Khadduri, Majid

Obviously if he founded a Middle East Studies program at a prestigious university, then it stands to reason his expertise lies a great deal in the same program which again most likely involves a great deal of history.

• Mohammed Abu-Nimer

Again he is studying religion, which in this case the particular religion is Islam, where again there is much history to be discussed as well.

As for the allegation that some above authors contradict other authors, I don't know the whole situation with them on every disputed change but I'll make a few conjectures. BTW, I'll assume the sources being contradicted are the western authors (Watt, Stillman, Rodinson, etc.) cited on the BQ page.

1. He uses more or other historical sources besides the ones utilized by other authors.
2. Other authors might be misreading the sources (And I have seen this for sure).
3. He might be misreading his.
4. Assuming he has a good knowledge of Arabic, he reads the original sources in their original form which are free from the whim of a translator's POV's. This one's pretty cynical but I don't doubt it happens to at least a small degree which can make a big difference in translation.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So as far as I see, there is a disagreement on Tariq Ramadan and Abu-Nimer. I beleive Ramadan is reliable, but Str1977 rejects his reliability for "historical research". Regarding Abu-Nimer I put him on WP:RSN. Only one person commented, but this person agreed that Abu Nimer was a reliable source. Regarding contradiction: if there appears to be a contradiction in a fact, then we note it, attributing both sources. If there is not contradiction in a fact, then we need not attribute the source and state it as fact. Whether or not, there's a contradiction in opinion, all opinions should be attributed.Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just realized one other possibility Bless Sins just reminded me of regarding contradiction among authors. History is not like science where everything something and nothing else; there is oft times a great deal of conflict regarding what exactly happened at some time, particularly with this era. Therefore, when there's contradiction among authors it does not necessairly mean one author is wrong or unreliable but again they might have employed different sources or material that the other author chose for whatever reason not to employ, be it opinion or more research into the sources giving the information. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly -- you're hinting on the point of the WP:NPOV guideline. Wikipedia doesn't judge who was correct, all views are presented. There are cases for instance: in history if the person contradicts most historians and is a layman themselves, in science if a person or group promotes a theory that mainstream science disputes -- in those types of cases, we don't necessarily include the minor viewpoint. Shell ^babelfish 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is though I have only now gotten involved with this particular dispute and I don't even know which topics in particular Abu Nimer allegedly conflicts with other authors on and so I suggested to Str1977 to bring each topic in one by one if the authors are not a problem themselves for inclusion. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Aminz: My view is that all of the above sources are reliable for all the information they provide on Qurayza (one may disagree but I think the current generally practiced standards in wikipedia allows these sources; many articles indeed use less reliable sources). Their content represents the perspective of the author. I don't know what is quoted from them but none of them can be anti-Jewish more than an arbitrary reliable author can be anti-muslim or anti-christian, otherwise during the peer-review process this would have been corrected. So, with proper attribution one should be able to use all of them. BUT, does that mean that we should keep to the original wording of these texts: No I would say, we should sometimes tone it down in terms of its language while keeping their main content. For example if the author says "fictional", we can instead write "didn't happen". Sometime some descriptions do not add anything informative and we can get rid of them as well. But this should be discussed after looking at the case.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We cannot simply infer that because some studies a certain religion he is also a qualified historian. One of course may specialize in that direction but that is NOT NECESSARILY the case. Abu Nimer for instance specializes in models of conflict resolution.

The sources contradicted are not only "western authors" (though I am not sure why that would be relevant at all) but all the sources including historical research and the primary sources, who all speak of an arbitration between Muhammad and the Banu Aus, making the BQ the mere objects. After all, they had already surrendered unconditionally.

Abu Nimer, who makes the claim, does not give any sources or references but just relates it like it were common knowledge. Well, it is not. It was probably just confusing two tribes. To his field it doesn't make any difference.

If an actual historian made such a statement I would agree with the let's note the contradiction approach.

As for Mr Ramadan, the problem with him is that he has very strong opinions and expreses them in a very strong language, bordering IMHO on the inflammatory. The question is how to include his opinions (and he is only used for opinion and I don't have a problem with that as long as the wording issue is solved.) Aminz writes in that direction but he has too much faith in the peer review process eliminating such language. That simply doesn't happen all the time (and of course we don't know whether or how this particular book was reviewed). Str1977 ^(talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• With the close study of Islam, history is involved a great amount, particularly b/c its history is derived from the same accounts that are used as guides towards practicing Islam. So in the matter of Islamic history, yes he can be considered a qualified historian of Islamic history.
• You didn't read any of the possibilities I gave you for the possible conflict of information between sources and Abu Nimer did you? Go back and see those first, then tell me what you think b/c you've already told me this and I've already responded to it.
• So you've read his book to confirm this?
• By putting in your own opinions on authors like this, you yourself are contributing to the "muddied" waters.
• So he does speak in honorifics and what not? You know beneath all that there is the actual information of relevance that his book was written for, we just need to read it an unbiased fashion and discern it.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please quote what these guys say. Thanks in advance, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the links: Khadduri and Buchanan, Moore and Hashmi. Abu Nimer states, in the Journal of Law and Religion, "in arbitration between the Prophet and the Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them."Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 can you present atleast one reliable source that says that there was no arbitration between Banu Qurayza and Muhammad?Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, all three sources you mentioned specify that the surrender of Qurayza was not unconditional but rather the tribe agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing. Majid Khadduri goes further and says that "On the basis of this precedent, al-Shaybani advises the imam that the Muslims may agree to submit to a third party a dispute on matters connected with the termination of fighting or of a particular battle. As in the case of..."

It appears that these three independent sources agree that the agreement between Muhammad and Qurayza even became a precedent for some later Muslim jurists. This leads me to think that the above three source are giving credence to certain Islamic traditions that other scholars do not. Thus, it is a valid point to include that according to some scholars the surrender was ... and it might be good to mention in the footnotes that it became a precedent for later jurists. Having said these, I think Str was acting in good faith because he hadn't seen those Islamic traditions that these three scholars are using. According to Khaduri, one can find those traditions that say that Qurayza didn't surrender unconditionally in a book written by "al-Shaybani". Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"all three sources you mentioned specify that the surrender of Qurayza was not unconditional but rather the tribe agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing."

Aha! Interesting that thus far it has always been claimed that they surrendered unconditionally! Which happens to be wrong according to this.

My view was all the time restricted towards the appointment of Sad which was brought about as Muhammad's respose to the protests of the Banu Aus.

If the surrender was not unconditional, we should work this into the article. Can you quote the entire Khadduri passage, Aminz? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>Please read my comment above. I've posted the link to the entire Khadduri book above.Bless sins (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree that this is strange. I had never heard of it before and I think Str did have a point and was acting in good faith. Yes, as Bless sins pointed out the link is given above. Please scroll down and see the next page as well and the reference given for the primary source in question. Cheers,--Be happy!! (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, let's have another look at this:

Looking into Khaduri, I do not see the supposed claim that the BQ surrendered conditionally. Neither is it in Abu Nimer. In fact Khaduri seems just as much confusing the BQ with the BA as Abu Nimer is, as the passage speak of an "arbitrator chosen by them". Our more reliable sources however speak of Muhammad chosing the arbitrator from among the chiefs of the BA. I grant you that the complaining BA chiefs probably had no alternative than to accept Sad (who afterall fit the demands they made) and maybe even had no reason to reject him and hence might have made a move of acceptance. However, nowhere are the BQ described as being involved with this choice.

Which leaves us the "States, Nations, and Borders" book. Unfortunately, things get even worse here: the book says that the BQ agreed to "surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing." This is completely at odds with all other accounts, as a) nowhere is an involvement of the BQ in the choice reported, b) nowhere are conditions reported, c) it makes Muhammad's quarrell with the BA pointless - unless Muhammad was going back on his word to the BQ and was forced by the BA to honour it, which however I do not think probable for reasons of diplomacy (it wouldn't be expedient to break his word) and personality (breaking an explicit promise doesn't sound like Muhammad). The book gives a footnote 88 as reference and we will have to look that up. Unfortunately the footnote is not included in the link given, which makes the whole thing pretty worthless. Khaduri however is referenced to a "Ibn Hashim, Kitab ..., ed. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 18.., vol. II, p. 688-689." Can anyone provide us with the text of that source? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I can not accept your thesis that Khaduri is confusing BQ with BA. Please see next page where it says "al-Shaybani advises the imam that the Muslims may agree to submit to a third party a dispute on matters connected with the termination of fighting or of a particular battle." Furthermore, three independent authors would not make the same mistake. And the job of the reviewer is to catch those mistakes.

Surely some of the sources are more reliable than others but we are not scholars who are doing the research.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I must insist on my thesis as this is what seems to me to be case. However, for a real understanding we need to see what the sources referenced are saying. I would indeed prefer a source these authors base their claim on. And sorry, we cannot help but discuss these things if we want a good and reliable article. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC) (PS 8still): please please do NOT remove the gap between this and the next comment.) Str1977 ^(talk) 02:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course the matter would be clearer if one can check the source Khaduri is referring to (i.e. Imam Muhammad bin Hassan Shaybani's al-Siyar al-Kabir with Sarakhsl's Commentary). Shaybani was born 100 years after the death of Muhammad, so it should be an early source; or at least what is attributed to him has the claim of being early.

Regarding the thesis that these guys are giving credence to some existing traditio , one could say that an scholar's assertion is correct unless proved otherwise; it is unlikely that three author make the same mistake independently; the type precedent it became. I think your thesis may be true but it still needs much more evidence to be able to considered as an argument for rejecting the other thesis and effectively removing its relevant info from wikipedia article. But I am completely open about the possibility of a mistake here if one can make a good case for it; I did some google search on this primary source but couldn't find any english translation of it.--Be happy!! (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Aminz, here's another medieval source: Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya (Ibn Kathir), page 166 of the 2000 version as translated from Arabic to English by Trevor Le Gassick([18]). Even according to this source "the Banu Qurayza agreed to submit to the authority of Sa'ad." We now have 4 sources (3 scholarly and one medieval). What are the chances that all of them made a mistake?Bless sins (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Shell and Aminz, let me make my case clear: I believe that Tariq Ramadan's book is reliable because it is published by the Oxford University Press. I believe Abu-Nimer’s article is reliable because it is published by the Journal of Law and Religion. I base my case on the following excerpt from WP:V “’’In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses;’’”

Wikipedia also says that “The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.” Thus, the fact that a publisher is reliable affects reliability just as much if an author is reliable.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think my claims have merit?Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These points should not be overstressed as you are (IMHO) doing. Your principles are correct but we have to decide on how to apply them here. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We apply them as we apply reliable sources. I.e. we accept what the sources say as fact, unless they are i) contradicted by a reliable source, or ii) giving an opinion.Bless sins (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a major mistake of yours: we do not accept what the "sources" say as fact, we accept it as the source's view. And of course, in these cases there is contradiction. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like every is agreeing here that these can be reliable sources. What is still up for discussion is how to use those sources and what weight they should be given. Are there any particular statements in the article which are problematic, or contradict other sources that need to be looked at? Shell ^babelfish 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable in the absence of contradiction. But we do have contradiction in one issue (Abu Nimer, Khaduri). In the other case (Ramadan) it is a matter of how to include opinions. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then it would be best to discuss those specific issues instead of the broad issue of all sources, since that doesn't seem to be an actual issue. Shell ^babelfish 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No this is not the case. Str1977 has yet to provide atleast one source which contradicts the three sources I have provided. From what I've read, not a single source says that "there was no arbitration between Muhammad and Qurayza". Not even one.Bless sins (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"we do not accept what the "sources" say as fact, we accept it as the source's view" Then I guess that the Qurayza were put to death shouldn't be treated as "fact" - esp. since we do have sources contradicting their deaths?Bless sins (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting sources? Everytime you read "unconditional surrender of the BQ" you do have a contradiction to these.

As for the massacre, we don't have "sources contradicting their deaths" - we do have two scholars doubting the figures and we accurately and neutrally report their view without endorsing it and without giving it undue weight next to the scholarly consensus - based on the historical sources . that the massacre indeed occured. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bless sins, it seems that Aminz was gracious enough to provide us with at least one of the sources that these authors used. Can you see if there are more, maybe some link to a bibliography or copy of a bibliography?
• Str1977, as you hopefully read and didn't skip, Aminz showed that they did use other sources as I said was a probable reason for contradiction. Do you still have a reason to call them unreliable just b/c they have a different view influenced by a different source from the same period as other sources that suggests otherwise?

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

I have read the links provided above except for the one that doesn't leed to any text (Ibn Kathir).

I never claimed that Khadduri doesn't use sources, only that unfortunately the googlebooks link does not name them (skipping over the pages with the notes - one more reason to prefer footnotes to endnotes).

Matters have complicated by the claim that the BQ did not surrender unconditionally but conditionally, putting several WP articles in the wrong.

Could I ask anyone to provide missing references and missing source texts (obviously not referring to those already linked) so that we all sort this out? If they are not translated, maybe anyone's language knowledge can help?

Str1977

• Theres a link to Ibn Kathir?
• Then I suppose we have another example of miscommunication b/c from what I've been reading of your posts, I've been getting the continued impression that you don't believe these authors have any sources to cite and their apparent contradiction to other authors is a sign of unreliability.
• Its a matter of style the author uses for his writing. I think maybe some consider using footnotes continually would clutter their pages, especially where there are many citations in certain passages.
• Errr isn't this the matter of "contradiction", that some authors assert it was one or the other?
• I have already put the request up in the air for the other 2.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• There is a link to Ibn Kathir in general but not to any one text from a book or a chapter.
• I do not dispute that these authors do base themselves on sources. It is these sources I want to see. In Khadduri's case, the footnote (which contains the info about the source) is lost in the linked ersion.
• Sure it is a matter of style. I was just voicing my stylistic preference. In printed books it spares the reader flipping back and forth, in digital sources it prevents cutting of the invaluabe references (as it happened here).
• Sure, that is contradiction and this appears to be the case here. However, we do have to understand the whole issue if we want to include it properly, not just write a nice sentence of "some say this, some say that".
• Thanks.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Str1977

• What, you mean his wiki article? BTW, I have access to the first 2 volumes of his biography of Muhammad but not the others; sadly that won't help with this article.
• Well hopefully they're still working on it. In the mean time I might suggest an author or two of my own if you don't mind examining another as well.
• Yeah and that sounds very agreeable but what can you do?
• Understandable, I think.
• No problem.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• No, what I meant was this link, provided by BS with the words >>here's another medieval source: Al-Sira Al-Nabawiyya (Ibn Kathir), page 166 of the 2000 version as translated from Arabic to English by Trevor Le Gassick([19]). Even according to this source "the Banu Qurayza agreed to submit to the authority of Sa'ad."<< As I said, it doesn't link to the actual text.
• Yes, I hope so. I am open to any input from you.
• Nothing unfortunately.
• Yep.

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Str1977

• What do you mean the actual text? The link takes me right to the page where Ibn Kathir is discussing the current topic. Do you mean you want to see the original Arabic?
• OK then. Tell me, what do you think of 2 people: Martin Lings and Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. Both have written biographies of Muhammad.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• The link takes me to a page saying "Compiled in the 14th-century AD by the Syrian scholar Ibn Kathir, volume three of this text continues to detail the background, life and mission of the prophet Muhammad. It details the numerous battles and campaigns waged between 3 AH and 8 AH to defend and spread the religion of Islam." not to the text of the source. Of course, I am not interesting in Arabic as I cannot read it but to an English (or similar) translation.
• Bring them on. What do they say?

00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Str1977

• Well thats peculiar, I see what you see but on a side panel. Centered on the screen though is page 166 of volume 3 with the full text and exactly what Bless sins says is on there. Will you take my word for it or would you rather want to find the possible problem with your inability to load the full page?
• BTW, you know, I think you could get this text at the library too if you want to check it out there; thats where I go to read it.
• ??? They say? On what? They say the life of Muhammad.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mik,

• Problem is that I simply take BS rendering because it is so short, limited to half a sentence. Can you not simply cite the whole passage you deem relevant. And no, I have no clue why the page doesn't load.
• Getting these books in the library would take some time. It would be quicker if you simply cited the relevant passages.
• About the issue we are talking about of course, i.e. the BQ or more specifically their surrender and the subsequent events.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Str1977

• So the problem is you don't believe how he's reading it so you want to read it yourself?
• Don't be lazy :-P.
• They made biographies so yes they would include what took place here.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I want to know what the source is saying. Unfortunately, some people here are prone to post only very small chunks of text and then expect others to understand.
• Well, I have ordered the Lings book but it will probably take some time.
• What do the books say about our issue here. I care not for their titles or whether they say something about our issue (I assume that because you bring them up) - the question is what they are saying. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) I don't think this is very productive. If Str1977 wants to review the sources, it is up to him to do so -- if there were multiple editors disputing the same information, it might make sense to provide the relevant text, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. This is so convoluted, I can't even decipher why this is still being discussed... can someone tell me what the actual issue is here? Shell ^babelfish 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me sum it up the best I can:

• Either Aminz or Bless (forgot which) cited the sources that Str was disputing the material of b/c they seemed to contradict on some points with authors already cited in the article so he thought they were either misrepresenting sources or not using sources at all. However, the link citations don't always give a bibliography on the page that the material is being discussed so I suggest that Aminz or Bless find those.
• There is one source by Ibn Kathir who is among the cited links. However, for some reason Str can't see whats in the link. I can and I so can Aminz and Bless apparently but Str can't. If you want, you can check it out and see if it works for you here ([20]). Anyhow, b/c of that Str can't "review the source". Therefore I've decide the cite passage:

Imam Ahmad stated that Muhammad b. Jafar related to him, quoting Shuba from Sa'd b. Ibrahim, quoting Abu Umama b. Sahl, who said, "I heard Abu Sa'id al-Khudri say, 'Banu Qurayza agreed to sumit to the authority of Sa'd b. Mu'adh. So the Messenger of God (SAAS) sent for Sa'd who came to him on a donkey. When he drew near the mosque, the Messenger of God (SAAS) said, "Stand up for your master" (or "your better"). He then said, "These people have submitted to your authority." He (Sa'd) stated, "We shall execute their warriors and take their children prisoner." The Messenger of God (SAAS) commented, "you have given judgement with God's decree." He may have said, "You have given judgement with the malik's ('the ruler's') decree." According to another account, the word used was malak, "angel".'"

• The other thing I brought up just now, which I probably should have just added into the points to discuss, is I want to see what he thinks of 2 other authors who've written biographies on Muhammad. However, we've never had any formal debate on them so I just inserted it here on a side note sort of thing. So far though, Str has just kept asking what "do they say" from which I still don't quite understand what he wants to know specifically about them.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first point: Str1977 claims to draw a conclusion from reliable sources that contradicts some other sources. It must be noted that the sources themselves do not explicitly contradict each other (i.e. no source says that the arbitration did not happen, though many sources are silent on the issue). In this case I don't think its fair to say that respected scholars are wrong on an issue. The very essence of WP:V and WP:NOR is that scholars, not wikipedians, define what fact is.Bless sins (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect on a few points:

• Nobody claims "that the arbitration did not happen", hence it there is no dispute about it. The dispute is not about whether an arbitration happened but between which parties.
• Sources DO contradict each other as some clearly state that the BQ surrendered unconditionally, whereas one says that the surrendered on the condition that ...
• Please do not (again) turn this into a WP:V/NOR muddle. That is not the issue. The issue is how to include this all. We are not robots and do not want the article become a mess of contradictory and unconnected factbites. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Master Jedi, thanks very much for the citation.

Based on it I can now say that we can include a note that the BQ also submitted to Sad as arbitrator. We can source this to Khaduri (as secondary source) and Ibn Kathir (as primary source). I still object in principle to Abu-Nimer but that doesn't make any difference to the content now.

The remaining problem is the claim "that the surrender of Qurayza was not unconditional but rather the tribe agreed to surrender on the terms of a Muslim arbitrator of their choosing." (stated above) However, I did not find this in the linked sources and I think right now this was a confusion between the military surrender (which was unconditional) and the formal acceptance of the terms hatched out by Muhammad and the Aws. Formal because the BQ really didn't have any choice.

I think this enables us to bring this part of the issue to a conclusion. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, no problem.

• That sounds fabulous. However, I do object somewhat to Ibn Kathir being a primary source b/c he too was a historian who gathered the actual primary sources (recorded accounts/ahadith) and made a biography plus he was many centuries after. As for people citing him, it is ok for secondary sources to cite other secondary sources AFAIK.
• Wait, there's more you should know about the BQ and how their incident is told in Ibn Kathir's biography. It seems he tells the incident over and over as it is recorded by past historians and various ahadith not just b/c each has their own variation here and there but b/c Ibn Kathir probably thought each had some validity or authenticity to their narratives. Anyhow, there is an account in it which kind of relates that they might have chosen Sa'd themselves.:

"The Messenger of God (SAAS) proceeded on to Banu Qurayza and besieged them for 25 days. When their suffering from the siege grew intense, a message was sent telling them to accept authority of the Messenger of God (SAAS). They sought advice from Abu Lubaba b. 'Abd al-Mundhir, and he made a sign to them indicating execution. Banu Qurayza then said they would accept the authority of Sa'd b. Mu'adh. The Messenger of God (SAAS) told them, 'Then do accept the authority of Sa'd b. Mu'adh!'"

• I sure hope so.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• With primary source I meant an actual source stemming from earlier times as opposed to academic research. If you will, Ibn Kathir is a collection of sources.
• The passage you quote of course would mess up things again if it said what you say it does. Only it doesn't. It simply say they "would accept him" not that they chose him. I can understand how one can come up with the idea in that isolated passage. However, this is now clearly Original research. We now what the academic research say. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It simply say they "would accept him" not that they chose him. - Actually in this passage theres no indication that he was pre-chosen by Muhammad as a choice for them, it just says that they took AL seriously and so they went with an alternative.

However, this is now clearly Original research. We now what the academic research say. - I think Bless Sins mentioned a source that says they said it as is apparent from the slight discussion of it above.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Khadduri refers this to Ibn Kathir. But whether he does, or not, is not of concern. Khadduri is an academic and scholarly source, Ibn Kathir isn't. I think the consensus was that Abu Nimer is also a reliable source (particularly since he published in a peer-review journal). Also you are forgetting that there is a third source: a book by Buchanan, Moore and Hashmi. Perhaps we can include the fact that they agreed to Sa'd as an arbitrator without saying "the surrender of Qurayza was not unconditional".Bless sins (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about this either but at least I now have certainty that this did not come out of the thin air or by confusing BQ and BA (unless Ibn Kathir's source do that but that is clearly beyond our scope).

Ibn Kathir is the primary source on this and as such should be mentioned. Note that WP does not forbid the usage of primary sources if we simply state that says this and that.

Please do not falsely claim that there was any consensus to include Abu Nimer. I am tending to be lenient but false claims affect that in a negative way. If there was a consensus I would know about it.

Indeed, the "was not unconditional" should stay out. If I remember correctly, it was simply a claim made by one editor (either you, Mik or Aminz) based on a linked source but which I did not find in that source.

I think the passage would read like this: After relating that the BQ surrendered and that the BA protested and wanted arbitration and came to terms with Muhammad and Muhammad appointed Sad arbitrator, we should simply note: "According to Ibn Kathir, the BQ accepted Sad as arbitrator as well" or "... submitted to Sad as arbitrator as well". Then we go on to Sad's decision.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But that is not accurate. If we have to attribute, then we say "According to Ibn Kathir, Majid Khadduri, Abu-Nimer, Sohail Hashmi, Alan Buchanan and Margaret Moore, the Banu Qurayza accepted Sa'd as an arbitrator."

However that appears to be ridiculous. When so many scholars support a statement, we should simply note "The Banu Qurayza agreed Sa'd as an arbitrator."

The above quote doesn't make any note of an arbitration, nor the fact they also chose the arbitrator, which our sources clearly do.

In that case the most suitable phrase would be "The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, an arbitrator also chosen by them."Bless sins (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that would be ridiculous. We can always say "the BQ reportedly accepted Sad as well". I mentioned Ibn Kathir because he is the source.

You are mistaken about your "so many scholars" (note that some of them are not consensus to include). Those you otherwise deem most reliable do not mention this. In any case, we have to note that this is less then certain. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me that isn't going to be enough; as was one of Str1977's points, contradiction exists with some authors already on the page and some authors we are considering adding so I present the following possible compromises, each has some variation b/c I know how everyone's so picky on what details should be included where:

• The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. However, it is not quite clear as to who had a say in choosing him in particular. Some historians suggest that Muhammad chose Sa'd after Banu Aws petitioned for a say in the fate of Banu Qurayza while others suggest it was Banu Qurayza themselves who took seriously the warning from Abu Lubaba.(references)
• The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. However, it is not quite clear as to who had a say in choosing him in particular. Some historians suggest that Muhammad chose Sa'd while others suggest it was Banu Qurayza themselves who chose. (references)

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I reject this. It turns a certain reading of texts coming up now (Ibn Kathir and the secondary sources mentioned) into the default version, the reading in contradiction with the sources already present. I insist that the current version, explicitely contradicted by no other, to be used as basis. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be stubborn, we've already accomplished a good amount. Now please answer these points so we can figure out specifically what the problem is, please. I will first state the point I believe to be true and then I will give a reason, please read that too before typing something in response.

1. Everything may not be a contradiction though it looks it. - As Ibn Kathir shows, not all the authors use all of or the same primary sources, therefore they may receive seemingly inconsistent accounts. However, It may be that in some order, all are true but some authors chose to go only by some and ignore others.

1. Mentioning BQ agreeing to Sa'd as an arbiter does not contradict what the present authors on the page say. - It may be that Muhammad talked to the BA and suggested the arbiter and then took it to the BQ but again
2. Saying BQ chose the arbiter is a valid claim. - Considering the last citation I made and also considering the fact that other authors also apparently abide by it and possibly other sources, its safe to say its not a figment of anyone's imagination. That is why when I gave the above compromise I made it a 2 part thing as is the model that I have observed in the article in several other spots when authors made differing conjectures.
3. Again, it does not necessarily contradict whats presently on the page, not counting conjectures however. - Its very plausible that Muhammad might have asked the BQ first about arbitration and then was approached by the BA to whome he put up the choice of arbiters.

I await your reply. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not stubborness. As for your claims:

1. Everything may not be a contradiction though it looks it. - Agree in essence, though there still may be a contradiction between the secondary "sources". But not necessarily.
2. Mentioning BQ agreeing to Sa'd as an arbiter does not contradict what the present authors on the page say. - Totally agree. In fact, your explanation is also pretty much mine: the BA insisted on arbitration, M. asked "how about one of your chiefs", they agreed and he chose Sad. The BQ accepted this as well.
3. Saying BQ chose the arbiter is a valid claim. - No, it isn't. None of our sources make that claim.
4. I am not sure about your claim in italics but as for the explanation, I think it very unplausible, given that they had surrendered unconditionally, given that our sources make the arbitration the result of the BA's protest.

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 Str1977 (Talk | contribs) (134,333 bytes) (undo)

Hey you're not Jedi, I'm Jedi; Impostor!

1. there still may be a contradiction between the secondary "sources". - And that is why they are secondary b/c it is their job to interpret the primary sources the best they can, only sometimes they can disagree on how exactly something happened or what in all did happened, doesn't mean one is wrong or they're all wrong or whatever. So thats why I suggested the latter part of the compromise.
2. Totally agree. - Sounds good so far.
3. No, it isn't. None of our sources make that claim. - I will repost what I gave in explanation to the 2nd citation of IK of why it might since Bless Sins response might have overpowered mine and you didn't respond to it (I think, correct me if I'm wrong):
   Actually in this passage theres no indication that he was pre-chosen by Muhammad as a choice for them, it just says that they took AL seriously and so they went with an alternative.
4. given that our sources make the arbitration the result of the BA's protest. - I mean that what if he approached the BQ first and asked who they wanted, they said Sa'd and he's alright with it so when he's going to call him. Then, the BA approach him unaware that he had already decided the arbitration in their tribe's hands and ask that they do it so he suggests Sa'd to them too and they're alright with it too. I'm not saying to put that in the article but its explaining a plausible possibility of why a sources might suggest that BQ chose their arbiter.

I await your reply. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for the mistyped signature, Master Jedi. It was the result from copy-pasting your points in order to reply.

1. I don't see why we are still arguing about this. As I said, they may disagree with each other or not. If they disagree than only one can be right. But it is not our job to decide this.

3. Actually in this passage theres no indication that he was pre-chosen by Muhammad as a choice for them, it just says that they took AL seriously and so they went with an alternative. - yes, but neither is there an indication that they chose him. I think you are reading that into the text. Only then does there pop up a contradiction.

4. You may work out such a scenario for yourself but it is OR. You are adding a lot of things to what our sources, primary and secondary, are telling us. But if you want to see it like that for yourself, so be it.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was kidding with the outburst  :-):

1. I don't see why we are still arguing about this. - B/c it looked like you were still arguing ;-).
2. I think you are reading that into the text. Only then does there pop up a contradiction. - Maybe but then what were those 6 something sources that Bless pulled out saying that they supported this? Have you checked and seen if they do indeed not really say that?
3. You may work out such a scenario for yourself but it is OR. - Which is why I said I didn't want to put it in the article, it was just for discussion purposes.
4. But if you want to see it like that for yourself, so be it. - Will it change your mind >.>?

Alright then, try this compromise on for size: The Banu Qurayza (also) agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Master Jedi.

2. What are these six sources? I am not aware of them. Can you point me to them?

3. Exactly. I didn't understand that the first time around.

4. No. As I said, I think this stretching the evidence a bit far (unless BS's six source really now do the trick.)

Try this: [After relating the M-BA dispute] The Banu Qurayza also agreed to submit to Sa'd [nothing more needed as we describe him before] as arbitrator. Str1977 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what he said:

But that is not accurate. If we have to attribute, then we say "According to Ibn Kathir, Majid Khadduri, Abu-Nimer, Sohail Hashmi, Alan Buchanan and Margaret Moore, the Banu Qurayza accepted Sa'd as an arbitrator."

Follow up questions are the same as in my previous response of course.

"mhm", "ok then", and "works for me" to the last 3 points respectively.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. Though these are only three sources. More importantly: "the Banu Qurayza accepted Sa'd as an arbitrator." is not the same as "the BQ chose Sad". I am fine with either "accepted Sad as arbitrator" or "agreed to submit to Sad as arbitrator". Str1977 ^(talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, now lets ask the others. Aminz, Bless Sins, Shell, we need you down here for input on the compromise. I agree it is fair compromise but of course I'm not the only one disputing let alone the one who was involved in it first. So what do you all think? Can we finally move on to the next point of dissension amongst these authors? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would accept the following Jedi MK's version: The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. However, it is not quite clear as to who had a say in choosing him in particular. Some historians suggest that Muhammad chose Sa'd while others suggest it was Banu Qurayza themselves who chose.

The reason for the strike out is that historians themselves do not record any discrepency or contradiction. A wikipedian says there is a contradiction, not a scholar. If there is a contradiction we simply note the supposedly contradictory views, without necessarily saying that there is a contradiction.

A better (shorter) version would be: The Banu Qurayza agreed to submit their dispute to Sa'd, a chief of the Banu Aws, for arbitration. Historians suggest that he was chosen by Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable. This still turns matters on their heads by making the BQ the prime mover of this all when in fact they had the least say in the matter. We must proceed: BQ surrender, BA protest, BA-M agreement, M chooses Sad, BQ accept. I will accept no less. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's see where the problem is. You agree the sources are reliable. Do you agree that the sources say that the Qurayza chose Sa'd?

Let me make the last question easier for you by providing some quotes (emphasis added):

Khadduri says: "Muhammad and Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe, agreed to submit thier dispute to a person chosen by them"

Buchanan, Moore and Hashmi say: "a Muslim arbitrator of thier choosing."

Abu-Nimer says: "the Prophet and Banu Qurayza, (a Jewish tribe) both agreed to submit their dispute to a person chosen by them"

BTW, did I mention that Khadduri uses Ibn Hisham - the earliest source available - to source his claims?Bless sins (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Do you agree that the sources say that the Qurayza chose Sa'd?" - No, I don't. Our sources realate that Muhammad chose Sad out of the chiefs of the BA. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

...didn't I just quote the sources above? I even bolded the word "choose"/"choosing". Perhaps Shell should come in and determine whether the souces above mention "choose" or not.Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But you forget those sources that say different things, sources like your Saint Watt or anyone else we cited before you started this all. Also, not all your sources above are reliable sources (Abu Nimer).

Ah, and please do not introduce new sources (Ibn Hisham) without quoting them. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, not all your sources above are reliable sources (Abu Nimer). - I thought you said the reliability was not in question, just "how they're used", why do you bring up it then?

please do not introduce new sources (Ibn Hisham) without quoting them. - Actually he's a primary source (by your given definition); Bless is only stating that a modern day secondary source author utilized him for his work.

Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, Mik, what I meant was: not all your sources are used in a way proper to reliable sources - as I said Abu Nimer is a RS on certain things but not good for simple historical facts.

Yes, I know he's a primary source. However, I don't think we should complicate matters at that time by introducing new sources ... unless they are needed, of course. In that case, we should have a closer look.

I now have the Lings book at hand. It doesn't look very impressive or scholarly to me. Still, what was it again what you wanted to use it for? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, you did agree that they were reliable and chose not to discuss the issue further. If you have any specific problems with any of the sources, you need to spell those out so they can be discussed instead of falling back to a generic "its not reliable" -- this position does little more than continue to stall the mediation. Do you have sources that state something other than the Qurayza chose Sa'd? If so, it would seem that there are two prevailing points of view and per WP:NPOV, both should be covered in the article -otherwise, it is clear that a number of reliable sources say that the Qurayza chose Sa'd and there is no reason to exclude that information from the article. Shell ^babelfish 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That is yet to be seen by me or mr. mediator (wherever he went) as we have only just finished one piece of who know how many debated items on the BQ page list of changes.

We introduced Ibn Kathir and he worked out just fine, sort of.

Depends on your views of whats scholarly or what it takes to impress you, i.e. both are subjective.

See my last post on the Abu Lubaba discussion for why I bring him up. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Shell, can you please lend a hand? In my post on 18:50, 16 February 2008 I provided quotes from the sources. I claim that those quotes are evidence that the sources say that the Banu Qurayza chose the arbitrator. Str1977 disagrees. What is your opinion on this, and how do we move along?Bless sins (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)