Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Trench

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of the Trench

[edit]

Closed: No consensus for promtion. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is close to A class status. Thus please check it and help us to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - some of the sources are unreliable. The one by the Islamist politician who lead the Jamaat is most definitely not reliable. Another is quite old, by an author who died in 1914. What type of organisation is "Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband" in Uttar Pradesh? Is it an academic publisher? The vast majority of the sources are written from a religious focus. Are there any sources that are more historical? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify which sources do you mean? Who is the Islamist politician who lead the Jamaat? Unfortunately I couldn't find the old source? Religious sources can be historical too. Let's review them one by one.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about Maududi? If yes, how does his modern political thought impact his historical one. I agree is not a netural source on Islamism and Pakistani politics.
Secondly the battle has religious significance. All sources (every single one) will one way or another trace their roots to Muslim traditions. The best source (accoriding to watt et. al.) is the Qur'an itself. It is also the least detailed source. These next best sources comprise of the hadith or the sira both bearing significance in the Islamic faith.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maududi is a religious scholar too and we consider him as a reliable source in Islamic issues.
Quran and Hadith are primary sources, thus we need to use secondary ones. But we haven't used them in the article except one quotation.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Encyclopedia of Islam has also separated these two issues. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the New Encyclopedia does mention the Qurayza at the end. The thing is that I haven't seen any author talk of the "the battle of Qurayzah". If you want we could remove the Qurayza casualties from the template; however, their strength remains as during the battle Muhammad had to sent a contingent of 200-300 men to protect Medina from the Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BQ incident should be mentioned in short, there is a comprehensive article on this in existence. Whether the BQ should be included in the template (figures, place) is another question. I tend to think they shouldn't. Str1977 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets understand the different situations: the Qurayza were considered a threat by the Muslims(as they had entered into negotiations) whilst the Meccan army was still camped outside Medina. That is why the prophet, who was outnumbered on the trench, still sent 200+ men to defend Medina from a possible Qurayza attack. This is clearly within the scope of this article.
The Qurayza were besieged after the Meccan army left. Whether this belongs is up in debate.
Thus, the strength of the Qurayza belongs in the template. As for the number of them killed, it is to be discussed.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the article has it the other way, restricting itself to the Battle of the Trench proper, in which the BQ were not actively involved. Hence they do not belong in the template. Str1977 (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand me. The Qurayza were involved in negotiations. Why is that important? Well according to Watt, and other sources, the Muslims defeated the enemy primarily through diplomacy. If you look at the casualties, the 10,000 strong invading army suffered only 3, indicating that there was little physical battle involved. As far as troop amassment is concerned, the Muslim did amass there troops in the direction to which the Qurayza were. See Battle_of_the_Trench#Muslim_response.
Whether we should include the siege of the Qurayza is up for debate. I think we should as it was a direct consequence of the Battle of the Trench. Infact, the prophet fought the Qurayza in the same armor he had worn while at the trench. The Muslim army didn't even rest in between the two.Bless sins (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - some MOS and referencing issues:
Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).
 Done
Current note no. 4 - lacks any reference information, page number, etc.
The title of the book doesn't need to be mentioned in every note, so please format them (for example, Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and statesman, p. 96. -> Watt 1961, p. 96).
 Done
Same for current ref numbers 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 20, 21, 30.
 Done
Current ref. number 19 needs a page number and the book should be added with all the appropiate information in the references section.
Current ref. number 25 - These included weapons, household goods, utensils, camels and cattle. The stored wine was spilled. See Kister, p. 94.. I could find no book by Kister in the references section.
I removed it, duo to lack of any information about it on the web.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide ISBN codes for books in the references section. This can easily be done through Google Books.
Unfortunately I couldn't find the ISBN of the two Arabic references.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please link dates in the lead and infobox, as well as throughout the article. For example, 31 March 627 -> March 31 627.
 Done
Use p. for single page reference notes, and pp. for multiple pages reference notes or page ranges. For example, p. 36, 37 -> pp. 36, 37.
 Done
Otherwise the article looks good. After this issues will be fixed, I will probably support it. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
The article is in overall need of a copyedit (primarily for flow). I can do bits of this if you wish. My suggestion would be to request a coypedit at the Logistics Department.
Given the size of the article, I think the lead warrants some expansion.
"The Confederates" section reads quite choppy, as there are about a half-dozen small paragraphs of very short length. Would it be possible to combine these somehow?

That's all I have time for now. I'll take a look tomorrow (after I get some sleep). Cam (Chat) 07:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my edits:
  • References should be given in an accesible manner. Every first reference of a book or article should give the author and the book title, every further reference only the author and page numbers. If one author has more than one book, titles should be given each time. Years are not needed and are no proper way of making references accessible - it has been a common problem that some editor adds a "author (year)" without caring about whether anyone knows what that book is. Also, various book have appeared in different editions in different years. Readers can more easily work with titles.
  • Of course, each and every book used in the notes should also appear in the literature section.
  • Authors should be named by their real name and link directly to their article. To see "Watt, Montgomery" (or Even "Watt, M Montgomery") pop up again is saddening. Str1977 (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I followed Eurocopter's suggestions but you reverted them.[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 11:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revert anything. I made my edits without any reference to any previous version. I explained them above. Please reply to that, if you will. Str1977 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are not my proposals and I ask Eurocopter to discuss with you.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eurocopter's proposal:
  • Use p. for single page reference notes, and pp. for multiple pages reference notes or page ranges. For example, p. 36, 37 -> pp. 36, 37.
  • Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).
  • Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "your proposals".
  • Using "pp." is unnecessary and dated. Everyone sees that there is more than one page by the numbers given. Additionally, it should not be "p. 36. 37." but "p. 36-37" or "p. 36f."
  • I don't care either way about the dashes if the one inserting the formatted dashed does so consistently. But it is much easier to include the normal hyphens and I actually never saw the advantage of using formatted dashes. But as I said, I don't care either way. Str1977 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Str1977 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just have a look over some FAs and see what type of referencing they use. See also WP:DASH. Consider Battle of Albuera as a referencing style model. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I prefer my proposal, the Albuera style would work (as would a simple Author-year style) if it weren't for the tendency of some editors to simply drop new factlets without any regard for the bibliographical information, i.e. they add something and reference it by "Someone (1977)" even if there is no book by "Someone" from the year 1977 in the literature section, thereby forcing others to clean up the mess. And then 1977 is revealed to be a different edition of a book already included under a different publication date. The book's title is the most essential thing and therefore should be included! Common sense should prevail over rigid models defined somewhere by God-knows-who.
Ah, and "pp" is really dated and unneccessary. Str1977 (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe "pp" is still standard whenever "p" is used. A footnote like "p. 272–274" is strictly amateur hour; it should read "pp. 272–74". What's optional, at least in the Chicago Manual of Style and perhaps other systems, is using "p" or "pp" at all when it is understood that the numbers refer to pages.
But you're right that a citation like "Someone (1977)" is not ideal. There's no strong reason to use an author-date reference in a footnote—that's a confused mixing of citation styles. But that horse has long left the barn. Citations on Wikipedia are thrown together from various parts like Frankenstein's monster. But as long as the needed information is there, people seem to be okay with the monster. —Kevin Myers 13:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_the_Trench&oldid=1138360876"