Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Banu Qurayza
Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.
|
Decision of the mediator that further discussion is unlikely to produce a result.
- This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.
Hello Bless sins, Str1977 and Jedi Master MIK. I'm Shell Kinney (feel free to call me Shell) and I'll be mediating this case if you'll have me. You will want to watchlist this page to keep abreast of the discussions.
As always, mediation is voluntary. In this particular case, its also important to note that I am not currently a member of the Mediation Committee but have been asked to help out in this case since all committee members are unable to take on any new cases at this time. I do not believe I have any conflict of interest with this case and I have a background in religious studies (hobby, not professional), however if for any reason you feel I would be inappropriate as a mediator for this case, you may choose to decline and wait for a committee member to become available. Declining me as a mediator will not be held against you in any way.
Please note below whether or not you agree with me mediating this case by adding "I agree" or "I disagree". I look forward to working with you. Shell babelfish 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Pending clarification of what precise issues are to be mediated (or in other words, with the caveat that the the above does not accurately portray the points of conflict), I accept Shell as mediator. Str1977 (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you as a mediator. Before, we proceed, can you briefly explain what your role will be to help us in settling this dispute. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree for you to be mediator. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
To address Str1977's question, if there is a difference of opinion on what the actual problems are, it is likely that developing a list of issues to be mediated will be our first priority. Mediation works best if we can start out stating the issues neutrally, for instance, instead of saying "1. Santa Claus should not be used as a source" something like "1. Is Santa Claus a reliable source" (assuming that policy is the basis of the reasoning to prohibit his inclusion). I will look at the issues presented on the case page, develop a list and then we can all discuss if more need to be included or if there are additional nuances to the issues already listed.
Bless Sins, for an in depth view of my role and this process, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Mediation. In short, I am a neutral third-party who will help direct discussions in an effort to achieve a consensus between all parties. As far as my personal style goes, I like to structure things so that we discuss one issue at a time -- I believe its easier to keep on topic and come to a decision when you only have to focus on one thing. I will not take sides, I never use my admin bit during a mediation and anything you say here cannot be used against you later -- we want to have a free, open and civil discussion in order to achieve a resolution that everyone can agree on. I would be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the process or dispute resolution in general. 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Shell, Thanks for accepting to mediate this. I have been at times involved in this dispute, so, if it is okay, I'd like to join in the mediation. Thanks, --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Issues to be mediated
[edit]- Are the words massacre or execution neutral in this context?
- Should the regret of Abu Lubaba be mentioned?
- Should Tariq Ramadan, Abu Nimer, Majid Khadduri, Daniel C. Peterson and Serjeant be used as sources?
- Should the parallel to the Torah be mentioned?
- Which term should be used to describe the women taken from Banu Qurayza?
- Is FPM an acceptable external link?
- Can Montgomery Watt's works be used to describe the role of Banu Qurayza in defending Medina during the Battle of the trench?
- Can Shibli Nomani be used to present Banu Qurayza's interactions with Huyayy ibn Akhtab during the battle?
- Should the phrase "as was practice" also note where the practice was common?
- Using WP:LEAD, how should the lead paragraph be written?
This is the list from the case page. Below please list whether any additional issues need to be discussed and note if any of the issues miss the point of the problem. Please do not explain your viewpoint on the issues yet, right now we just want to agree that we have a list of all the issues that need to be resolved. Shell babelfish 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there is also some dispute over the appropriate way of writing an introduction for this article. --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Shell, if you don't mind I have added some wiki-links to your comment. --Aminz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks. I was wondering what FPM stood for. When you refer to working on the lead paragraph, what is it that you are unsure of -- problems with NPOV or tone or just difficulty with what should be in a lead? Shell babelfish 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think the problem is with providing an NPOV summary of the article for the lead. But we can include it in the general form of "Writing the introduction". Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There are some additional article related issues:
- Can Montgomery Watt's works be used to describe the role of Banu Qurayza in defending Medina during the Battle of the trench?
- Can Shibli Nomani be used to present Banu Qurayza's interactions with Huyayy ibn Akhtab during the battle?
- Can Majid Khadduri be used as a source?
I have some concerns about the discussion as well:
- Is it uncivil to bring in to question a user's religious beliefs, after that user indicates that he/she doesn't want his religious beliefs to be a part of this discussion?
- On the talk page, may users post highly contentious and negative information about notable living persons?
- Is it uncivil to accuse a user of violating wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:CENSOR)?
Bless sins (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've added those points to the content questions above.
- To answer your concerns about discussion, since you didn't give diffs, I can't give you specific answers, however:
- In general, it is best to avoid discussing other editors and focus only on content. There are very rare exceptions where someone may politely point out that a particular editor's beliefs may be causing them difficulty sticking to NPOV. I would ask that those involved in this mediation stick to discussing the content issues to be worked out.
- Very rarely and only with sources. Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space is clear that the only reason for such material to be on a talk page is in the case of an editor discussing content to be included in an article (and they should be providing sources at that point).
- Not usually. Its possible to make those types of comments in an uncivil manner and continually making accusations without proof can sometimes be uncivil, but simply warning another person that they are violating policy is not uncivil. Again, since you didn't show a specific case, I can't advise you on the particular incident you're mentioning. Shell babelfish 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mention any incidents on purpose. I'm not looking to embarrass any particular user, but to establish guidelines in general for this discussion. I think your answers are clear. Thank you. When can we begin discussing the actual issues?Bless sins (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Just waiting to hear from Str1977 and Jedi Master MIK as to whether they agree we've listed all the issues that need to be mediated. Shell babelfish 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh sorry I didn't know you were waiting for me. Ya, I think thats all the issues. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hallo, sorry for taking so long. I think the points raised above are more or the less the issues in dispute, however I would rephrase them as such (I have taken the liberty of numbering the list above for reference):
1. Is the word "massacre" neutral, accurate and appropriate to use in reference to the whole event of the BQ's demise (my view) or should be word be removed completely from the article (BS view)?
2. Should the regret of Abu Lubaba be mentioned outside of place where it is directly relevant to the article? (I say no.) If so, is it enough to state that he regretted his words (my suggested but ignored compromise) or need we parrot the exact wording from the source?
3.a. Should Tariq Ramadan be used as a source? Or only with caution?
3.b. Should Abu Nimer be used as a source on historical events? Even in contradiction to existing sources? (I say no.)
3.c. Should Majid Khadduri as a source on historical events? Even in contradiction to existing sources? (I say no.)
3.d. Should Daniel C. Peterson be used as a source? (I see no dispute about this.)
4. Should the claim that the verdict agrees somehow with Deuteronomy be included? If so, how? (Longstanding consensus was not to include this.)
5. Should we use tangentially relevant special terms in Arabic in the plain text (as opposed to wikilinks)? (I say no.)
6. Should FrontPage Magazine be mentioned in the external links? (I say why not.)
6.a. On a related issue: should we selectively remove items from a "further reading" section that we don't like? (I say no.)
7. Are we obliged to follow William Montgomery Watt (that's his full name, the surname is simply Watt) even in vague and questionable wordings? (I say no. ) That Watt can be used as a source is not at all controversial, he is quoted at least half a dozen times.
8. Are we obliged to follow Shibli Nomani in all wordings? IMHO the issue is already settled aside from one about another source (Lings).
Basing myself on the latest revert, I see other issues as well:
9. Shall we include a view from Serjeant that is not decisive to a discussion?
10. Shall we include the BQ's socially inferior status, deduced from the lower blood money, as a fact right at the beginning of the passage, or shall we place it further down as a deduction from the fact that the blood money was lower?
11. Should describe something as "as was practice" without denoting where it was practice?
12. How shall we word the introduction?
Finally, this mediation must be limited to actual changes to the article and not focus on real or supposed incivilities - I know both parties have made mistakes on that field but highlighting only one party's fault would be, well, imbalanced. Also, discussing these doesn't get us anywhere. Str1977 (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Few more notes before I hope we could get started.
- 2. It should be noted that there was no visible change in the article at all by the "compromise", just a little note in the edit box of the article which was not otherwise viewable. Otherwise, thats not what I had a problem with.
- 5. Nah nah, we all did agreed a long time ago that using the original arabic would be a little too much and wikilinks would be better; the issue is stated correctly as we "ended" with conflict on how it should be translated or referred to in English. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The issues originally stated were stated quite neutrally. Str1977's edit on 22:10, 16 December 2007 shows how Str1977 views the situation, and should only be used as such. Secondly, I insist that WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP and other wiki policies be upheld both for article changes and for discussion. I don't think that this is an unreasonable demand, since these policies contain special provisions for discussion, meant to be used at times like these.Bless sins (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mik,
- 2. I never laid any blame at your door for the invisible compromise. I posted it invisibly because I didn't want to go ahead before anyone accepted it as a compromise. It always takes at least two for a compromise.
- 5. Indeed. We two seem to agree on this. But it seems that BS here wants to have the Arabic term appear.
- BS,
- No, my statement reflected my view (and that was my intention) but the original statements were not neutral at all but in some cases actually mispresented the dispute
- You can insist all you want but I will not agree to any mediation on behaviour issues. If you think I did wrong you can report me any time you feel like. I want this mediation to be aimed at achieving a solution for the article text, not to pound anyone into submission. Str1977 (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The issues originally stated were stated quite neutrally. Str1977's edit on 22:10, 16 December 2007 shows how Str1977 views the situation, and should only be used as such. Secondly, I insist that WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP and other wiki policies be upheld both for article changes and for discussion. I don't think that this is an unreasonable demand, since these policies contain special provisions for discussion, meant to be used at times like these.Bless sins (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this is exactly what we do not want to do. Please limit your comments to other issues that need to be added to the list. Shell babelfish 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have added two of the issues that Str1997 brought up; I did not add number 10 since I'm not sure I understand what that's meant to say. Also, I have a bit of concern about "deduced from lower blood money" and just want to make sure that a source deduced this, because if this is something we came up with, its original research and shouldn't be used. Shell babelfish 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- To elaborate on this: one version says that "Hitherto, the Qurayza, who were less powerful than the Nadir, stood socially inferior with respect to Nadir." whereas another one has "The more powerful Nadir rigorously applied Lex talionis ... placing the Qurayza in a socially inferior position." [1] The remark about the social position is, I think, mentioned in a secondary source but IMHO it is a deduction from the fact of different blood money. Therefore I prefer the second version. Str1977 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, this mediation isn't to focus on behavior, its to resolve the editing impasse. Bless sins did not refer to any editor when asking questions about behavior and gave no indication of whether someone in this debate had behaved that way -- I don't believe the questions or answers were intended to bother you. However, that doesn't change the fact that everyone involved should remain civil during the mediation. We're much more likely to resolve the issues if we can calmly discuss the points.Shell babelfish 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, Shell. The main point is that behaviour should not be an issue. I believe that once the article issues are fixed, behaviour will not be an issue for lack of opportunity. Just this note: you are not familiar with BS but I am hence I know that he referred to me. Not that I consider my behaviour, despite all faults, to be worse than his towards me. In any case, it should not be the issue here as no resolution is possible. And I will try to be as civil as possible. Str1977 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Use of Massacre/Execution
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
Comment by Aminz[edit]Here was my position:
Comment by Str1977[edit]
Comment by Bless sins[edit]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).
I assert that the term is non-neutral. To back up my claims, I refer to:
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.
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[edit]I'll try to be short and simple seeing as most of the points seem to have been stated:
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Thoughts on a compromise[edit]
Couple of comments about words people are considering.
Str1977:
Aminz:
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Mik,
Str1977
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Mik,
Str1977 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Str1977
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Regroup[edit]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)
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)
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:
Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
|
- Everyone agrees to using Demise in the heading; there's no need to make threats or conditions, you've achieved a consensus and can move on to other things. Please do not undo my closure of the section again, thanks. Shell babelfish 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No discussion?
[edit]This page seems to be deserted. It is most probably due to the Christmas break. I hope the discussions continue after New Years.Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Its very likely that everyone has some kind of holiday celebration or something similar that is keeping them busy. I've added some new comments in reference to the most recent discussion to give everyone something to look at when they come back from their break. Hope all of you have a wonderful holiday season. Shell babelfish 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was on wikibreak during Christmas and will resume activities in a short while. Str1977 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Other issues
[edit]What about the issues that are part of this mediation, aside from "massacre vs. execution"? Str1977 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is a list under issues to be mediated. If we can finish up with the first point, I think everyone would be like to move on to something new. Shell babelfish 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- So we have to solve the biggest problem first before we can also address easier issuses? What if we can't? Str1977 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- If everyone involved in the mediation would like to move on to another issue for now, or open another one to discuss at the same time, I would have no problem with that. As for not being able to solve the problem, you guys seem to be headed in the right direction to achieve a resolution, but if you can't agree, then you may have to decide to go with the majority consensus or maybe just not be able to solve that issue at this time. Shell babelfish 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am with you hoping for the best but I am also expecting the worst. I don't intend to lay this on your doorstep but rather addressed all participants. Str1977 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- If everyone involved in the mediation would like to move on to another issue for now, or open another one to discuss at the same time, I would have no problem with that. As for not being able to solve the problem, you guys seem to be headed in the right direction to achieve a resolution, but if you can't agree, then you may have to decide to go with the majority consensus or maybe just not be able to solve that issue at this time. Shell babelfish 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- So we have to solve the biggest problem first before we can also address easier issuses? What if we can't? Str1977 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Regret of Abu Lubaba
[edit]Should the regret of Abu Lubaba be mentioned? Shell babelfish 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- And if so, how? Should we merely mention that this was "an act that he would regret later" (my suggested but ignored compromise) or do we have to quote AL's exact words as lifted from Ibn Ishaq?
- I personally would not include it at all as it has no bearing whatsoever on the BQ. However, I am willing to compromise as described above. After all, that would be only a subclause. But I am opposed to quotefarming. Str1977 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't read the text in a long time. But this is what I remember and would suggest: "Immediately he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad." Its best to get Jedi Master's input on this before any serious discussion starts.Bless sins (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that was your preferred version, which I reject. Str1977 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with your compromise Str1977 is I think I misunderstood it. You had it put invisibly in the article, hence I didn't see what compromise invisible text serves. However, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you put it invisibly till I confirmed to agree with it. If that was it, I think it would have been easier to just have put it in the article or at the very least mention it specifically in the discussion what your intention with putting it invisibly clearly was.
- The format that BS puts it in looks good I think, a little neater version of your compromise so I'll agree with it if you will. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly that was the point of the invisible text. Sorry, if I didn't make that clearer.
- However, I see no way of accepting the version BS proposes. Str1977 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you talking of 'The account says that he later related that after giving his advice, "My feet had not moved away from the spot before I knew I had been false to God and His Apostle"'? Str1977 doesn't like it since it's in quotes. Though Str1977 is not considering the fact that '"made a sign with his hand toward his throat, indicating that [their fate] would be slaughter"' to is in quotes.Bless sins (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't like it because it adds irrelevant stuff. If you really want to include AL's regret that's fine but we will not retell the entire story on it, with AL's feelings etc. Str1977 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- What you suggested above Bless sins sounds agreeable: "Immediately he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad." To Str1977, Bless sins has a point; right before this comment theres still "quote farming" regarding AL. So regarding that (and if you agree with the above stated alternative), I suggest something like (not final suggestion or anything, please add/subtract/change if unsuitable) this: "However, he then gestured to his throat which Ibn Ishaq states the meaning as indicating slaughter would result from the decision". Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well since I suggested the suggestion, obviously I agree with it. We need Str1977's input.Bless sins (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't accept a version that retains this quotefarming. I said that much. Str1977 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- ??? Uh I haven't said here I wanted to use any such version. In fact, I suggested an additional change which would make that resolution even more solid and credible. Here is what I like, make any reasonable changes and we'll go from that:
- At the same time, he then gestured to his throat which Ibn Ishaq indicates meant that the decision would lead to slaughter. However, he then realized that he had betrayed Muhammad.
- Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not object to that version except for the inclusion of the word "betrayed". It adds nothing new and does not cover that actual inclusion of his regret - which of course is what's under dispute here. Str1977 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to what AL said, he only realized what he had done after he did it, thats why I have it stated. And I meant to include th regret but forgot so here it is again: However, he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad and immediately regretted it. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do we need the word "betray" in there? Str1977 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read my post carefully before responding, not just part of it. Its there b/c AL only realized what it was he did after he did it and it explains particularly what he's regretting. If its not there, then you're right about it being unnecessarily there b/c then it just shows he's sad, nothing more, who cares? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- If we can't come up with a good wording, the most agreeable solution will be to quote verbatim from the earliest sources. This, neither Jedi Master, nor Str1977 can deny as it is a definite text.Bless sins (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read my post carefully before responding, not just part of it. Its there b/c AL only realized what it was he did after he did it and it explains particularly what he's regretting. If its not there, then you're right about it being unnecessarily there b/c then it just shows he's sad, nothing more, who cares? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why do we need the word "betray" in there? Str1977 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to what AL said, he only realized what he had done after he did it, thats why I have it stated. And I meant to include th regret but forgot so here it is again: However, he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad and immediately regretted it. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not object to that version except for the inclusion of the word "betrayed". It adds nothing new and does not cover that actual inclusion of his regret - which of course is what's under dispute here. Str1977 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't accept a version that retains this quotefarming. I said that much. Str1977 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well since I suggested the suggestion, obviously I agree with it. We need Str1977's input.Bless sins (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- What you suggested above Bless sins sounds agreeable: "Immediately he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad." To Str1977, Bless sins has a point; right before this comment theres still "quote farming" regarding AL. So regarding that (and if you agree with the above stated alternative), I suggest something like (not final suggestion or anything, please add/subtract/change if unsuitable) this: "However, he then gestured to his throat which Ibn Ishaq states the meaning as indicating slaughter would result from the decision". Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't like it because it adds irrelevant stuff. If you really want to include AL's regret that's fine but we will not retell the entire story on it, with AL's feelings etc. Str1977 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't read the text in a long time. But this is what I remember and would suggest: "Immediately he realized that he had betrayed Muhammad." Its best to get Jedi Master's input on this before any serious discussion starts.Bless sins (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could everyone give a short explanation of why they believe that this should or should not be included in the article? Shell babelfish 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bless sins: It is important that we provide all significant views to an event, as well as its implications. Certainly Abu Lubaba's views of what he had done can be considered a significant view. it also explains the issue further.Bless sins (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Str1977: AL's inner feelings are irrelevant to the BQ. We are not retelling all details but only those relevant to our article's topic. Str1977 (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jedi Master MIK: Every history book I've so far read which relates this incident has mentioned the entirety of the AL incident in the BQ incident, even if it was summarized as small as what I wrote above, hence the sources do find importance with his actions, thoughts, and feelings towards the incident. Also, suggesting putting AL's whole story his own page is pointless b/c one, he doesn't have a page and two, AFAIK this is the only incident he has shown great relevance and so we might as well scribble even a small summary regarding what he did and how he regarded his actions. I do have one other point I might want to bring which regards the usage of a Muslim source and view of the incident but I will wait and see if this is sufficient. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well everyone has given his/her reasons. What is Shell's opinion on this issue?Bless sins (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Str1977, do you disagree about this event's significance? It sounds as if both Bless sins and Jedi Master MIK believe that the event was significant to understanding some of the aspects of the outcome. Shell babelfish 07:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not the event's significance but this detail's significance. Whether "all history books" mention it is beside the point ... they also give detailed accounts of the "Battle of the Trench". Why? Because it is important to the narrative of early Muslim history. But does are article relate the battle? No! But why as it is much more important than AL's feelings? Because it has no bearing on the BQ! And neither has AL's inner feelings.
- And I am asking again: why do we need to employ the word "betray"? Str1977 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The battle of the trench was not all about BQ though. However, all parts which deal with the BQ in the battle of the trench in the article. AL AFAIK is pretty much entirely connected with the BQ incident; there isn't even a separate article on the guy, so there is nothing wrong with including his actions and thoughts regarding them.
- Whats wrong with betray? It explains in particular why he regretted what he did. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- "The battle of the trench was not all about BQ though." And neither are AL's feelings. His actions are but his feelings are not.
- How does betray explain "why he regretted what he did"? (Not that this makes it on topic. Str1977 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- AL's feelings for BQ caused the betrayal and then his feelings for his religion caused regret over the same betrayal so yes they did have to do with BQ.
- And his personal account given in Ibn Ishaq explains how betrayal explains why he was regretful when he, in words, states that after he did it, he only then realized what he had just done and thereafter he punished himself in regret of that realization. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, AL's feeling about the BQ are relevant as motivating an action concerning the BQ. His later feelings of betrayal have no such connection.
- Could you answer my question and not merely quote Ibn Ishaq to me? Str1977 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please actually read what I said after I "quoted" him. If you want to make it more simpler, try to think of another reason he was regretful. BTW, could you also respond to what I had to say about your analogy? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not find what you want to say. Could you please restate it so that I can understand it. And what analogy are you talking about? Str1977 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please actually read what I said after I "quoted" him. If you want to make it more simpler, try to think of another reason he was regretful. BTW, could you also respond to what I had to say about your analogy? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another possible way to look at things: AL made a decision significant to the outcome at BQ. This outcome was not a slap on the wrist, it involved killing all the men and enslaving the rest of the population. In other historical articles where serious outcomes were involved, say the atomic bomb series, we don't mention the regret of any of the people involved and stick to a describing the events as they happened. However, we do mention their relevant feelings and thoughts in their own articles, for instance, Robert Oppenheimer. If AL is unlikely to have been notable enough to receive his own article, it would make sense to have this information in the main article at this time.
- In regards to the use of the word betrayal -- had I not read some of the sources, I would not have understood how AL had betrayed Mohamed at all. It might be a good idea to think of a clearer way to word this information so that someone unfamiliar with the incident can understand why he immediately regretted his choice. Shell babelfish 12:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're thinking of Sa'd b/c he made the final decision. Nevertheless, what you said sums up pretty well what I guess I was trying to say too.
- Well earlier on in the dispute there was a bit of dispute on what exactly was the betrayal. Therefore I left it just at it being betrayal b/c according to Str1977, its quite obvious what the betrayal was.
- BTW, this question is to Shell_Kinney, what do you say the betrayal is?
- Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aminz:- Kind of late but my view is that we should simply quote from the primary source Ibn Ishaq regarding his later reaction. It is a very short detail and doesn't take much space and is of course relevant. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I initially rejected. We don't need a quote farm. We are the editors of the article and we must consider what the article wants to say, what is on topic etc. instead of mindlessly repeating source texts, especially if they are as verbose as this one. Str1977 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- But this is merely one sentence and arguably on topic. Quoting from Ibn Ishaq is good in the sense that it presents what the primary source says which may be in turn followed by the opinions of scholars. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- To Str1977, 2 problems with your reasons:
- The fact that you don't care that there's a quote right behind the suggested placement of the quote by AL but you do have a problem with this quote contradicts your reason for rejection.
- Putting in one quote does not constitute quote farming; listing numerous quotes is.
- Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- To Str1977, 2 problems with your reasons:
- But this is merely one sentence and arguably on topic. Quoting from Ibn Ishaq is good in the sense that it presents what the primary source says which may be in turn followed by the opinions of scholars. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's some questions to consider:
- Is there a way to state the regret more clearly? I'm assuming by saying "betrayed Mohamed" you mean that he shouldn't have told them to go against their agreement and oppose Mohamed -- but if that's what it means, that's what it should say. This wording invites the reader to guess what the betrayal was, as well as the extent of such a betrayal -- great for fiction, not so great for an encyclopedia.
- Would it make sense to simply state that he regretted the decision? I believe Str1977 mentioned this possibility earlier; its clear and concise. If more is needed, it would make sense to also explain why he regretted. Shell babelfish 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- No that wasn't the betrayal. The gesture that he made to his throat (signifying slaughter according to Ibn Ishaq translated by Guillaume) is what the betrayal was, he told them to agree to Muhammad making the decision however. What the
- I say put in betrayal b/c it is given as part of the original account so just saying he regretted it for some reason is kind of vague.
- Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with quotes per se. I do have a problem with quotes that are either longish or verbose and relate stuff irrelevant to the article.
- I did indeed, as Shell states, propose to simply state that AL regretted his action. Str1977 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think regret is a strong enough word. According to Ibn Ishaq, "he went and tied himself to one of the pillars in the mosque, saying "I shall not leave this place until Allah pardons me for what I have done." Then he promised Allah, "I shall not come to Banu Qurayza ever again, nor shall I ever again be seen in a city in which I betrayed Allah and his Apostle"...
- Furthermore, saying he regretted it is incomplete because it doesn't say that the reason was that he viewed it as a betrayal to God and Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- If he so strongly regretted his actions that he took to chaining himself in a mosque, then perhaps the incident deserves more than just a single sentence to explain its depth. Its generally preferable to write your own prose as opposed to quoting the source directly unless there is some significant about the quote itself. Shell babelfish 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It does indeed deserve comprehesive treatment in WP, only in his own article and not in an article on another group in which he appears at a single event. However, strange that no article as of yet exists about this really important figure of early Islamic history. If all the energies devoted to including this detail into the BQ article into a Abu Lubaba article, this would have been solved.
- "Regret" is perfectly accurate enough. As I said a millions times before, AL's psyche does not belong in the BQ article. We need not retell the entire verbose account present in the sources. This is an encyclopedia. Str1977 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Str, when we were discussing the "aftermath" vs "massacre", you made the good observation that the term "aftermath" is not strong enough and I felt that you are right. Honestly, I feel regretting here is a weak explanation of AL's attitude nor does it explain the reasons for this regret. We are arguing here over just one short sentence, which does not seem to statistically make the article that longer or create great distractions. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I understand, Aminz, though please note the difference: "aftermath" is basically meaningless (aside from placing it after something else) while "regret" does carry meaning - the equivalent would be something like "reaction".
- However, if regret is not strong enough, I would have no objection against something like "strongly regretted" etc.
- I also feel bad about arguing about a single setence, but alas, I did not chose this. Str1977 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Str, when we were discussing the "aftermath" vs "massacre", you made the good observation that the term "aftermath" is not strong enough and I felt that you are right. Honestly, I feel regretting here is a weak explanation of AL's attitude nor does it explain the reasons for this regret. We are arguing here over just one short sentence, which does not seem to statistically make the article that longer or create great distractions. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I asked this before, and I'll ask it again: why don't we simply use the words the sources provide us? Quote-farming is apparently no issue, since we have quite a long quote from Huyayy.Bless sins (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because the convention on Wikipedia is to use quotes sparingly and generally only if there is something significant about the actual quote or we want to repeat someone's words verbatim. I don't see any reason in this case to quote directly from a source when prose to describe the situation would be easy to create ourselves. What about Str1977's point that the person deserves their own article, which can go in to more detail about their feelings? Shell babelfish 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with this, which I've stated before, is that he doesn't seem to show enough importance to other parts of Early history of Islam so as to be notable enough for his own article. Therefore, whatever little stuff that can be said about him should be stated here b/c his importance seems to be linked greatly with this. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. From my knowledge, he doesn't appear anywhere else in history except for the Qurayza episode. Per WP:N#TEMP "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." This is the case with Abu Lubaba: his "short burst" of notability is from the Qurayza episode. I doubt we even know even the most basic information (his ancestry or his descendants etc).Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with this, which I've stated before, is that he doesn't seem to show enough importance to other parts of Early history of Islam so as to be notable enough for his own article. Therefore, whatever little stuff that can be said about him should be stated here b/c his importance seems to be linked greatly with this. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- BS, I would really appreciate it if you didn't repost the same stuff all over again. I'll certainly will not accept any "my feet had not moved" passages.
- AL clearly deserves his own article. There have been obscurer figures both from Islamic history and elsewhere that have their own article.
- Here we only include that what is relevant to the BQ, the rest belongs into his own article. Str1977 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There have been obscurer figures both from Islamic history and elsewhere that have their own article. That doesn't necessarily make it right, though I wouldn't mind an example or two to better see your point on that. I still don't see whats wrong with saying betrayal though, it explains his regret but if you want to go into more detail on that so its clear, then make an article on the guy. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't necessarily make it right. However, I believe it is right nonetheless, at least since there is no way to classify him into a larger group. If we were talking about one of Muhammad's wives about which nothing much is known, we could classify her under "Muhammad's wives". In AL's case that doesn't work. I say we should create an article for him into which all this info about his conscience can be put. Str1977 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is much known about all the wives however and they all have their own articles. AL as a person however is as important and notable enough for his own article as another guy mentioned with the BQ incident who, according to Ibn Ishaq, vanished off the face of the Earth after converting or something. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I am not going to check whether all the wives' articles contain more than mere "daughter of X, born then, died then, wife of Muhammad". Anyway, this is not about the proper examples but about the principle: this article cannot serve as a replacement for AL's own article. Either he is really that unimportant that he doesn't get his own article or he is important enough for. As far as this article is concerned, we do only include the things relevant to the BQ. Str1977 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually out of the 13 (2 disputed) only 2 are somewhat like, at most 3. And again, his only relevance (as far as we know) is with BQ. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- To get back on topic here -- can all of you come up with a suggestion of how this particular portion should be written so we can try to come to an agreement? Shell babelfish 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you read down below, you'll note that I mentioned I want to suggest 2 other author's as sources. The topic of AL is one of the places that I want to consider their inclusion b/c they IMHO can express why its significant to express AL in the BQ article. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue of sources
[edit]Extended content
|
---|
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:
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:
I justify the reliability of these sources on a few points:
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)
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.
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)
For the sake of Mik, let me quickly comment:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:29, 2 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)
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)
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) |
- Why is this discussion collapsed as if it were finished.
- I have stated my position, what I am willing to accept. And yes, of course I have sources that state that Muhammad chose Sad from among the Banu Aws. These are the sources already included in the article.
- I have also stated how and to what extent the "sources" are "reliable". Str1977 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- We never doubted there are sources that state Muhammad chose Sa'd, what you doubt however is whether there are sources that suggest that BQ actually chose him. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then why should we rewrite the passage in a way that suggests that the BQ chose Sad, totally in contradiction to the most reliable secondary sources and with no foundation in the primary sources? Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- No source says "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd". Atleast you have not provided a source. I have repeatedly asked you to provide a source, and you have not provided one. On the cotnrary reliable secondary sources (quoting primary sources) do say that Banu Qurayza chose Sa'd. This is very clear to everyone here, and I'm tired of repeating this.
- Regarding the closure of this discussion, Shell made some closing remarks in his/her edit on 21:34, 23 February 2008 above ("Actually, you did agree that they..."), I suggest you read it (if you haven't already). Further discussion, which is regarding the wording of this, is to be continued in "Moving on" as Shell has requested.Bless sins (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then why should we rewrite the passage in a way that suggests that the BQ chose Sad, totally in contradiction to the most reliable secondary sources and with no foundation in the primary sources? Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- We never doubted there are sources that state Muhammad chose Sa'd, what you doubt however is whether there are sources that suggest that BQ actually chose him. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Stop blurring the issue, BS.
- No source says "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd". That's an unreasonable demand and futhermore not true. Sources say that the BQ surrendered unconditionally. Which rids them of any further say. Also, sources covering the entire affair (including your cherished Watt) do not support your claim.
- I am also tired of repeating this. If you are no longer interested in this mediation, so be it. The aim here is not a "in the end BS gets what he wants".
- I will not post in "Moving on" as that section seems to be without any purpose. Str1977 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- "and futhermore not true" So which source says "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd"?? Saying the Qurayza surrendered uncoditionally is not equal to saying "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd". This is simply your OR.Bless sins (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's exactly what frustrates me - I have already answered your question: the BQ according to many reliable sources "surrendered unconditionally". This contradicts your claim. Your demand is furthermore unreasonable since you cannot expect a secondary source (and much less a primary source) to clearly state "and the Jews did not chose him", unless in a critical treatment of the books that include such a claim.
- However another idea comes to my mind, which I will post below. Str1977 (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- "and futhermore not true" So which source says "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd"?? Saying the Qurayza surrendered uncoditionally is not equal to saying "Banu Qurayza did not choose Sa'd". This is simply your OR.Bless sins (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shell we need you here. Str1977 wants to know why the discussion was "collapsed" and where we stand right now.Bless sins (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- BS, please no. I do not want to know why the discussion was "collapsed". Well, actually I would be curious but that question is relly not important to the mediation. There are more important things. Please, BS, if I have a question for Shell, I will ask her myself.
- My point is that the discussion should be happening in this section, not anywhere else. Str1977 (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shell we need you here. Str1977 wants to know why the discussion was "collapsed" and where we stand right now.Bless sins (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Another idea comes to my mind just now: As far as I see it, we have a few secondary "sources" say that "Sad was of the BQ's chosing" or "the BQ chose Sad" - while the primary sources make no such claim, restricting themselves to, in different wordings, an acceptance by the BQ of Sad, which would be perfectly in line with the position held by Watt et al. (namely that Muhammad chose Sad from the BA). My idea is this, mention (as outlined above, somewhere in the collapsed text) that M. chose S. from the BA and that the BQ accepted. And then add (in text or footnote) that some authors take this as "Sad being of their chosing", in contradiction to Watt et al. Str1977 (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Moving on
[edit]- Its clear that we have reliable sources stating that the Qurayza chose Sa'd and I see no reason to exclude that from the article. If Str1977 wants to give details about what sources he thinks are unreliable on this point, we can discuss that. If he wants to give details on another proposed wording or another major point of view that needs to be included as well, we can discuss that too.
- I think it would be helpful from now on, if everyone involved tried to help work on a solution. That means instead of saying "no, i cannot agree", tell us what you can agree with or tell us how you would like to change things (and yes, some of you are already doing this). Shell babelfish 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can agree to whatever is within the limit of what the sources say. I'm ready to negotiate with the wording Str1977 proposes, prvided the wording respects WP:V and includes whatever the sources say (without an OR).Bless sins (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Scope
[edit]Since some people have muddied the waters, let me reiterate that the scope of this mediation is the article Banu Qurayza, no more, no less. Str1977 (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Should the parallel to the Torah be mentioned?
[edit]If everyone can give a brief overview of their feelings on this one, hopefully we can move forward with something :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shell Kinney (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bless_sins' view: I have found three sources that explicitly state that the judgment to have the men of Qurayza executed was based on a verse from the Torah. Ofcourse, I think any such statements should be attributed and not treated as fact (because interpretation of any religious scripture is highly subjective). If you note, we are also mentioning the Qur'an in this article, thus I see no problem in mentioning the Jewish scriptures, given that the Banu Qurayza were Jews. Finally, we can add to this with content other users may bring along, but I insist that all sources used be explicitly referring to Banu Qurayza. A source that has nothing to do with Banu Qurayza should not be in this article.Bless sins (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Jedi's view: Simply if a reliable source or sources on the matter of the history of Islam, Banu Qurayza, or whatever suggest this interpretation or scholarly conjecture as someone put it I think, we should include it as such especially considering the numerous free thinking negative and/or one sided interpretations of the Muslims actions. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Str's view: If the whole issue should be included, it must be done in a balanced way, not by simply dropping three handpicked sources into the article (which BS did before). We must not give this undue weight nor must we forget to provide the necessary context of Torah interpretation (as a former version of this did). I said IF we should include this because this was once removed by consensus (as being too much of a fringe view) and will not agree to a restoration simply based on the views of four editors (me included) if others (outside of this mediation) are known to disagree. Personally, I am neutral as to whether to accurately include it (as described above) or leave it out. Str1977 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Some questions for everyone:
- Does everyone agree that the sources are reliable?
- Does everyone agree this is a minority viewpoint?
- Does anyone have a proposed wording for this information?
Some questions for Str1977:
- What do you mean by "handpicked sources"? Shell babelfish 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Shell, here are my answers:
- Most sources who make the claim are of questionable reliability,
- I certainly do.
- The way this was once included. But WAIT: there is yet no consensus to include this at all.
- I meant: when BS decided to re-include this issue, he did not go back to the original wording and amplified it with his sources. No, he started at zero and wrote it himself, based on his sources, in an extremely onesided manner. Str1977 (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please give us some more details on which source you don't believe is reliable and explain why.
- Looks like we're all agreed that this is a viewpoint, so, I don't see any lack of consensus.
- We all write from our sources. If you think is was worded in a one-sided manner, please provide an alternate wording or comment on whether or not you agree with the wording below (if you do not, please provide an alternative instead of just saying no.)
- Is Str1977 requesting I prove the reliability of my sources (because I'd be more than happy to).
- Well, we have no source saying this is a minority viewpoint. I agree that this viewpoint is not present in many sources. I'd further like to point out that we are making comments about Muhammad based on only one source and the Qur'an based on only one source too.
- The "original" wording (which, if it is what I think it is) contained sources completely irrelevant to Banu Qurayza. Perhaps Str1977 should copy and paste it here so we know what he/she is talking about.
- My woridng is "Daniel C. Peterson, Martin Lings and Caesar Farah state that this judgment was in accordance with the Jewish law as stated in Deut. 20:10-14."
- Regarding "hand-picked sources": I've never stopped Str1977 from adding reliable sources to this (provided they deal specifcally with Banu Qurayza). On the contrary Str1977 continues to remove some sources but keep others.Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lets wait and see which sources Str1977 thinks are unreliable and why. Thank you for providing a proposed wording. Shell babelfish 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- BS,
- "I've never stopped Str1977 from adding reliable sources ..." - Well, big deal. You added stuff going against the previous consensus. As I uphold the consensus (without being internally bound to it) I of course could not honour your additions in such a way. Also, as long as you drop your uncooperative attitude (which you displayed time and again, not only evidenced by your recent constant blanket reverts) I will not honour your unilateral additions in such a way. I am not here to make your POV pushing acceptable - you should learn to make NPOV edits yourself.
- In your first addition I give you the benefit of the doubt as you might not have known that this was covered earlier but after I pointed it out to you, you knew and hence have no excuse ignoring it.
- Now, having had a look at Lings I can say it is no usuable source at all. It is merely a narrative of Muhammad's life with hardly any critical apparatus or scholarly observations. It was disputed in earlier discussions that Farah said what is claimed here. I never voiced any opposition to Peterson.
- Shell,
- you ask for a proposed wording. As I stated, the issue of whether to include this at all is not decided yet. Nonetheless, the former wording was this. I could live with this and this could also be amplified by other sources BUT let me make it clear that this in no way rejudices the issue of whether to include this.
- It should not be a mediator's job to jump ahead of this issue. Unless this primary issue is solved first, I will not accept any wording suggestions.
- Finally, BS, you have claimed that The "original" wording (which, if it is what I think it is) contained sources completely irrelevant to Banu Qurayza.' - Just because it hurts your pressuppositions and your POV intentions doesn't make it irrelevant. It is clear that once again you want the article to say that the Jews are to blame for their own massacre. It is not for Muhammad or Sad or any other Muslims to expound what the Jewish law is, regardless of any pretensions of "Abraham's religion". Str1977 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shell you are needed here immediately. Some of Str1977's comments are not in anyway relevant to this mediation. For example, "Just because it hurts your pressuppositions and your POV intentions doesn't make it irrelevant. It is clear that once again you want the article to say that the Jews are to blame for their own massacre."
- Those comments are completely unnecessary and seem uncivil. To me respecting the other is a big must for continuing mediation. I would like Shell to comment on the above before continuing.Bless sins (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- BS,
It doesn't appear that this mediation is going to end productively. We have one participant who has wasted a good deal of time arguing in circles and refusing to offer any suggestions or add to the discussion. Str1977 keeps saying "No." while everyone else tries to discuss the issues and offer compromises. He has now gone so far to tell me how I do my job and to make comments that are disturbing for religious and racial reasons.
There is a consensus of three other editors that this material should be included and Str1977 also agreed that this is a minority viewpoint; at this point, that solves the primary issue. Str1977 appears to be objecting based on his opinion and some religious acrimony - these are not reasons grounded in Wikipedia policy.
Unless Str1977 can indicate that he is willing to continue in good faith on the mediation and avoid any further attacks on other participants, I will be closing the mediation. Shell babelfish 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. I agree that at the moment the mediation does not ssem to end productively. However, I myself protest against any attempts to lay the blame on my doorstep.
- It is not me arguing in circles.
- It is not me stonewalling discussions. We would already have an agreement on the larger part of the "sources" issue if others would not insist that only a complete fulfillment of their wishes is a proper solution. Or so it at least seems to me.
- "There is a consensus of three other editors that this material should be included and Str1977 also agreed that this is a minority viewpoint; at this point, that solves the primary issue." - This comment is indeed disturbing. Three editors might agree but we must also consider that there are others outside of this mediation. Agreeing that it is "a minority viewpoint" does not solve the primary issue. Ever heard of the "undue weight" policy? Indeed, the primary issue has not even been addressed by anyone other me and Shell (but he only through now uttering the supposed solution)
- "He has now gone so far to tell me how I do my job and to make comments that are disturbing for religious and racial reasons." If you can't take the heat ... I must say that so far you have stayed out pretty much (I am not blaming you, you probably have your reasons - there is a life outside this mediation). There hardly has been any mediation going on. And now you jump ahead of the issue that is actually controversial. That's no way to proceed.
- Re BS's complaints, I did not attack him or anyone personally. However, I do see what BS is doing outside of this mediation, I see what he did before and where he is getting at. I would be glad if he proved me wrong.
- Finally, some people here seem to be forgetting that a mediation is about finding agreement between various parties. I am one of those parties. Str1977 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've been asked to specify your concerns a number of times, instead of doing so you choose to accuse other editors of having agendas and me of mediating improperly. These types of statements do nothing to help resolve the problems and simply inflame tensions. If you believe there is undue weight or the sources are unreliable, please give some kind of logical explanation as to why that is -- we cannot guess what your feelings are on the topic and other editors cannot address your concerns without knowing what they are. We are also unconcerned with editors not in the mediation, we are concerned with working things out between the editors here.
- Attacking other editors is not acceptable. No one needs to "take the heat" - this is a collaborative editing environment and in order to maintain a healthy atmosphere the community has created guidelines you're expected to follow. No personal attacks is not negotiable. Instead of telling us what other editors are doing wrong, please focus on the content.
- Now, if you would like to explain why you feel this may be undue weight, provide other sources for your viewpoints or discuss which sources you feel are unreliable and why, I'm sure everyone would be happy to engage in that discussion with you. Shell babelfish 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not here to make your POV pushing acceptable - you should learn to make NPOV edits yourself. - Hopefully, I'll only have to say this once: comments like these don't do anything except aggravate relations with the other disputing party and every time you revert Bless' changes, thats all you ever say yet you fail to realize b/c its all still in dispute, neither side can claim this hence why we're asking a mediator to guide us in the right. Also IIRC, Bless only started stating this as his reason for reverting after he got tired of you saying it.
- It should not be a mediator's job to jump ahead of this issue. - This is definitely uncalled for and no one should even have to tell you why. Oh well Mr. Mediator could not always be around as much as he could've or should have but thats then and flaking him for it now only hinders the mediation process even more.
- Thats my 2 cents till we can get back on track of the mediation.
- Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was upset and frustrated yesterday and though I can stand by everything I said (and insist that I did not issue any personal attacks), I see that many things I said indeed were not helpful. Maybe true but not helpful. That doesn't mean that I will now simply submit to seemlingly predetermined roads (to explain: apparently, some people here have already decided that the issue will be included, passing over that issue).
- "We are unconcerned with editors outside the mediation" - well, but they are not outside of WP and in the end, any solution that we work out could immediately be reverted by them. In any case, we should be clear that this mediation cannot work if some people think to go via majority rule.
- As for undue weight, this claim is clearly beyond the pale of mainstream academic historiography. Watt, for instance, who mentions Arafat's "The massacre never happened", does not even grace that claim with a note. Also, the better sources for it amount to a "the ruling agreed with Deuteronomy" which isn't much and doesn't go as far as to say "Sad based himself on Deuteronomy". Str1977 (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was upset and frustrated yesterday and though I can stand by everything I said (and insist that I did not issue any personal attacks), I see that many things I said indeed were not helpful. Maybe true but not helpful. That doesn't mean that I will now simply submit to seemlingly predetermined roads (to explain: apparently, some people here have already decided that the issue will be included, passing over that issue).
Closing case
[edit]Since Str1977 has now indicated that he will not stop the personal attacks nor abide by instructions of the mediator or the structure chosen for the mediation, I have no choice but to close the medation. Thank you for your time. Shell babelfish 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)