Talk:Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan)

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force

Name

At least two articles were renamed from "Battle" to "Invasion" recently ( here and here) on the claims that Mubarakpuri said so. Is there any reason for not using Mubarakpuri's naming of this event as "Hamdan Delegation" here as well ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you cant call it a battle, when no battle took place, and it is a military expedition when "horsemen" are sent. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear to me why this is a "military" expedition. Nothing in the text really justifies that. That the people were armed (if they were) seems not particularly odd, for the times William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am still of the opinion that this entire block of stuff needs rework to come under the banner of "early spread of Islam" or somesuch; some of which was by force, some not William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

I see Al-A removed two tags [1]. One I can see as debatable; but the "history" cat seems unexceptionable; that really deserves an explanation.

As for the POV tags: please don't scatter them casually. Make a good-faith attempt to resolve issues on the article talk page *before* tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed parent categories. What's so unexceptionable about that ?! Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is your lack of explanation. In fact I still don't know what you consider to be a parent of what; see M2's edit, below William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-A, why did you remove the "Islamic history" category from many articles. Are these battle/expedition articles not part of Islamic history?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC) update: by the way, the category was called "Muslim history" before, a robot changed it to "Islamic History"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pretty clear when I said that I "removed parent categories". "History of Islam" is a parent of Category:Battles of Muhammad, which you didn't even bother to verify that. Also, William reverted prematurely, he posted the question here, then reverted a few hours later, claiming it hasn't been answered. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No: I did "bother" check. And as far as I can tell, you're wrong: Category:History of Islam has no sub-cats beginning B, let alone the one you mention William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you haven't checked properly:

History of Islam

Islamic conquests

Battles of the Islamic conquests

Battles of Muhammad

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked what you asserted: that it was a parent. Had you said parent-of-parent-of-a-parent-of-a... it would have been clearer from the beginning, and much unpleasantness could have been avoided. You were complaining about wastes of time elsewhere; you could help, too William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, though, you now have a lot of hard work ahead of you; check Category:History_of_Islam William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "unpleasantness" would have been avoided if (1) you checked the categories, (2) you waited for my response before reverting and claiming that I haven't answered, (3) you assumed AGF and told Misconceptions2 to do the same as much as the number of times you told me that, and (3) double checked the categories again after my second assertion. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said: I did indeed check your claim. Your claim was false William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get this. Does wikipedia have something against using parent category tags. i checked the cat tag and it seems many articles used them like how i did.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]