Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Abd Allah ibn Ubayy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- John Carter 21:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abd Allah ibn Ubayy was born in the 7th century.

Older

[edit]

article has anti-islamic pov. --Striver 00:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV cleanup

[edit]

Article edited as part of work on the NPOV backlog. Loaded words and some text has been removed. Since there has been no discussion suggesting further disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with {{NPOV}} and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

[edit]

How is Glubb, a military man, a reliable source on Islam?Bless sins 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Please answer the above request, or provide more reliable sources to replcae references to Glubb.Bless sins 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What facts are disputed? Arrow740 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything attributed solely to Glubb.Bless sins 20:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no reason to doubt any of the statements in the article. Glubb became a respected historian of the Arab world after his military campaigns there. Arrow740 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back your statements up. How does a soldier become a "respected historian" with no educational background on Muhammad, whatsoever?Bless sins 20:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the publishers and bibliography, he's a prolific historian published by eminent presses. Arrow740 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is not an adequate response. Either show he's a reliable source, or find better sources. The burden is on you to find a reliable source.Bless sins 20:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but WP:RS is a guideline, not a rule, and if you want to prove the book by him isn't a RS the burden is on you. Arrow740 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence again. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That will be you when I delete the material. Also, don't playdown the importance of WP:RS.Bless sins 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad edit

[edit]

Here we have the two versions, good and bad:

  • In 624 Muhammad moved against the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qaynuqa and eventually forced them to surrender. Now, Abd-Allah was allied to the Qaynuqa and according to Muslim historians, went to Muhammad and asked him to deal kindly with his allies. As Muhammad turned his back on him, Abd-Allah, held him by his cloak. This provoked Muhammad's anger but Abd-Allah replied:

In 624, after a conflict broke out between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa removes the information that Muhammad initiated the military action,

Muhammad beseiged the tribe, resulting in their surrender the last phrase can only be made grammatical through the use of the passive voice.

Abd-Allah was allied to the Qaynuqa and, according to Muslim historians, asked Muhammad to be lenient this is from the POV that Muhammad was enacting some just judgement, the old version is in fact NPOV

with his allies. As Muhammad turned his back on him, Abd-Allah, held the former what's the problem with pronouns? Muhammad was a real person, it's OK to call him "him"

by his cloak. This provoked Muhammad bad, vague English Arrow740 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The conflict was initiated by Qaynuqa, afer teh market place incident.
2. He did not ask Muhammad to be kind but rather lenient. Kidn woudl be to allow the Qaynuqa to stay, but lenient is to allow them to leave.
3. In any case, I'm disputing the factual accuracy of all of this above.Bless sins 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bless sins, re "lenient," why not be specific and state that he asked Mumammad not to kill them? That would avoid the need to insert your POV into mainspace.Proabivouac 21:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Just your POV, not supported even by Muslim sources.
2. He asked not to massacre the Banu Qaynuqa; "kindly" is Abd-Allah's own word. Leave to the readers to decide whether not to massacre a tribe is a sign of kindness, leniency, or just normal human behavior.
3. Of what? Beit Or 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. The conflict was initiated by Muhammad's calling on the Jews to convert to Islam. The BQ, trusting in their strength, boasted that even though he had defeated the Quraish at Badr, he wouldn't be able to defeat them. Now, this was a foolish move (as they found out later) BUT the initiative nonetheless rested with Muhammad. ... In nay case, the wording "M moved against" does not so much deal with the overal causes of the conflict but merely that, in this one instance, M. attacked. Other versions make this needlessly complicated.
2. As Beit Or said, "kindly" is Abdallah's word. Therefore I have now put it in quotes, as indeed the kindness of that act is debatable.
3. As Beit said "Just your POV, not supported even by Muslim sources."
Str1977 (smile back) 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't even be arguing this, as we can't say that Glub is a reliable source.Bless sins 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bles, slightly rewording Wittgenstein: "Whereof one has nothing to say, thereof one should be silent." Str1977 (smile back) 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors of this page

[edit]

Please refrain from adding honorifics to Wikipedia articles - specifically, do not refer to the "Prophet Muhammad." Instead, link and refer to "Muhammad." KazakhPol 00:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

[edit]

Please, if you think there is a problem regarding neutrality, please state it here. Str1977 (smile back) 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think there is. there seems to be a heavy reliance on Glubb, though we don't seem to know quite what his academic credentials are. there are stark differences in how EoI presents Ibn Ubayy and how both the article and (seemingly) Glubb present him. i intend to do a rewrite on this soon, hopefully drawing from some better sources. the informal tone of addressing Ibn Ubayy is something i also hope to address. ITAQALLAH 12:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will restate my question: where does the article state a view as fact or where does it violate the NPOV in any other way? If you don't have a proper reason for disputing neutrality, you shouldn't be tagging the article. If you don't come up with some, I will remove the tag.
I don't see any violations. That doesn't meant that there is no room for improvement. My overhaul I thought to be a catalyst for that, as before the article was first a stub and than a real piece of POV pushing.
As "informal tone" - what do you mean by that? Str1977 (smile back) 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state it clearly: All statements attributed to Glubb are under dispute, until it can be shown that Glubb is a WP:RS. If it is not shown that Glubb is reliable, I will tag all his statements with {{Fact}}, and ask for better sources. IF that doesn't work, the statements will be removed.Bless sins 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do so will be surely in violation of WP:POINT. Beit Or 13:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To tag statements that are improperly sourced with {{Fact}} is not a violation WP:POINT.Bless sins 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i already stated where i think the problem lies: in the usage of Glubb. as we know, Glubb has no training or qualifications in Islamic history, and so he isn't to be presented as a historian, or used/quoted as extensively as has been done here. i also stated how the representation of Glubb here contrasts with how Ibn Ubayy is portrayed in the EoI. we don't know if Glubb is representing an academic opinion at all, so extensive reliance upon him to tell us about Ibn Ubayy is inappropriate. informal tone, such as referring to Ibn Ubayy as Abd-Allah, whereas he is more appropriately discussed as Ibn Ubayy. ITAQALLAH 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't demonstrate the presentation of Ibn Ubayy in EoI contrasts with that in Glubb's book, only postulated that the contrast exists. Beit Or 13:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beit Or, please show how Glubb meets WP:RS. The Burden of evidence is on you (as you are defending the material).Bless sins 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking a third time: what pieces of information given in the current text would you consider to be wrong (> factual accuracy disputed) or onesided or where are opinions presented as facts (> neutrality dispute). Merely the sourcing is not enough to tag an article (except with a "sourcing tag") unless you present certain pieces which you dispute. I think you should be able to do so within 24 hours.
The topic of this section is this question and not any (valid or invalid) concerns about Glubb as a reference.
As for the "informal" tone: we address Abdallah Ibn Ubay primarily as Abdallah because that is his name. The patronymic is a usefull alternative, as there are quite a few Abdallahs around at that time. But his first name is the proper first choice. At the time, people did not yet employ this strange modern invention called family name or even confused the two. If you don't believe me Itaq, go over to Muhammad and change the wording into "Ibn Abdallah". But first, change the article's title to Muhammad ibn Abd-Allah.
Str1977 (smile back) 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: informal tone. that's incorrect, we generally address people through their last names (we say Stillman says, Watt says, Bush says; not Norman says, Montgomery says, or George says) , or in the case of the arabs, their patronym, kunya or their locality (we say: Ibn Abbas says, Abi Lahab says, an-Nawawi says). the first time they are mentioned, we mention the full name. referring to one as Muhammad is an exception, as in general discourse (and academic in particular) everyone knows who is referred to when "Muhammad" is mentioned as opposed to another Muhammad of the time such as Muhammad ibn Maslama. similarly, anyone else named Muhammad throughout history is addressed otherwise (i.e. ash-Shafi'i, Ibn Abi Bakr, adh-Dhahabi etc.). Ibn Ubayy is addressed as such in the EoI also, and i doubt there are very many presses at all that simply address him as "Abd-Allah" ITAQALLAH 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true in most, but not all cases. For example, Ali ibn Abu Talib is better known as "Ali" than as "Ibn Abu Talib". In any case, this is a minor issue and not really a neutrality dispute. Feel free to change "Abd-Allah" to "Ibn Ubayy"; I will not object. Beit Or 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaq, that's (to be blunt) nonsense regarding "pre-modern" people. If AiU were often/commonly addressed as Ibn Ubayy it would be a reason to use it as well. However, I don't see that he is exclusively referred to by that patronymic or something similar (as opposed to Ibn Abbas, or Abu Bakr). Therefore is actual first name is the standard form of addressing him. In his own article, he is the "default Abdallah". Str1977 (smile back) 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i disagree. only where the first names have become popularised, such as with Muhammad, Ali, Saladin, and so on, do we see its usage. for everyone else, usually their kunya, last name, and/or locality is used as i expressed above. his EoI article addresses him as Ibn Ubayy. Rodinson interchanges between "Abdullah ibn Ubayy" and "Ibn Ubayy." i haven't come across any academic work which frequently refers to him as "Abdullah/AbdAllah" only. if anywhere, you'd expect it in an academic biographical article on him, but as i said, EoI's article on him employs Ibn Ubayy. ITAQALLAH 13:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, I have repeated my argument: all that is sourced to Glubb is not factually accurate as Glubb is not a reliable source. That is the dispute of "factual accuracy".Bless sins 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you either don't have a case or you are not able to make it. Either way, the tagging is not justified. Str1977 (smile back) 11:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my argument clearly above. As long as this article contains the statements factually inaccurate, there is a dispute on factual accuracy. Why are you choosing to ignore my argument?Bless sins 13:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please get a grip on two things: I asked about the neutrality dispute, not about any supposed factual accuracy dispute. You have made no argument about neutrality above, neither have you made one about factual accuracy - you have made on about sourcing. You cannot simply say any statements based on Glubb are inaccurate (you do, but that only reveals the fallacy of your claim) - you would have to clearly point out which statements are not neutral or which are factually inaccurate. And note these are not the same (and I will not repeat this one more time). Otherwise I will assume that the tag as originally placed is insubstantial - I will probably not remove it as Itaq's rewrite (judging from a brief look) has introduced a whole lot of POV problems (real POV problems, that is) himself. Goodday, Str1977 (smile back) 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite

[edit]

in the light of the poor sourcing and neutrality concerns (such as the exaggerated adulation of Ibn Ubayy, apparently by Glubb), i have rewritten the article using Rodinson and EoI mainly. Mubarakpuri was used a few times to substantiate attribtutions to Islamic tradition. there was a lot of dialogue (mostly attributed to Ibn Ubayy) which i removed, when a source more appropriate than Glubb is found feel free to reinsert it. similarly, some of the narrative attributed to Glubb concerning events not included in this version may be included if you can find a decent source for it. i restored the rendering of the lead which i proposed. i noticed that Str "tweak[ed]" with it (looked quite a lot like a revert to me), but in the EoI article on Ibn Ubayy, Watt says: "When all but a small minority of the Medinans accepted Islam, Ibn Ubayy followed the majority, but he was never a whole-hearted Muslim." Rodinson says the same thing really: "His reason for joining Muhammad was probably that having seen the strength of the wave of the conversions to the Messenger's doctrine, he thought it wiser to join than to stand out against it." so it's not something merely attributable to Islamic tradition alone. thanks. ITAQALLAH 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well! Who'd have thought two goats would butt heads about this hypocrite? Arrow740 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My tweak was not a plain revert but a combining of information from both versions and a toning down of the POV introduced by the previous edit, which for instance plainly stated as fact that Abdallah was half-hearted. Also, I want to ask Itaq to refrain form general statements like "exaggerated adulation of Ibn Ubayy, apparently by Glubb" - if he hasn't read Glubb in the first place. His book is first and foremost a biography of Muhammad (or must I say Mr. Ibn Abdallah?). What you call adulation is his failure to simply villify the chief of munafiqin.
All that being said, I will look at Itaq's rewrite with an open mind. Str1977 (smile back) 11:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was indeed excessive adulation, there were several quotes from non-historian Glubb designed to press home the notion of Ibn Ubayy's apparent "peacefulness" and "moderation". such descriptions are not supported by the academic works i have access to, do you have any opining otherwise? furthermore, you inserted original research like the clause ".. in political matters ..". that is not endorsed by the source and absolutely debatable: obedience to Muhammad is a religious matter. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaq, stop behaving like you own this article. Abdallah is a perfectly encyclopedic name. And thanks for clearly showing your totalitarian stance: asking for mercy for your clients + differing strategic opinions = opposition = disobedience (note to someone who was not King of Medina - a title that BTW never existed) = a religious matter. Means everyone is obliged to obey your Muhammad in every minute detail. Ridiculous and dangerous. Str1977 (smile back) 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Str, do not insert baseless original research into the article please, masking it as sourced. find a source for it, or do not insert it. simple. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the dispute about? --Aminz 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also, i was going to ignore the rather grand rhetoric, but i simply demonstrated that the issue was debatable. "political opposition" is your own viewpoint and currently original research. Aminz, the issue is as you spotted below. ITAQALLAH 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aminz, this dispute is about Itaq's rewrite, which is per se okay (I always said that an article can always be improved), which however reintroduced a POV-slant, removed certain things (immediate deletion instead of fact tagging) under the pretext of RS (but employed Sealed Nectar at the same time), his unilateral insistence on using a last name (based on terribly faulty reasoning). I will explain more in due time. Str1977 (smile back) 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"exonerated by the Qur'an"

[edit]

I object to this passage, "Shortly after, Aisha was exonerated by the Qur'an, which also rebuked those who had spread the rumors," for two reasons. First, the Qur'an doesn't do anything on its own: regardless of their ultimate source, these words were spoken by Muhammad. Second, "exonerated" is POV. For all we know (faith aside,) the rumors may well have been truthful.Proabivouac 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Str1977 (smile back) 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
saying she was exonerated by Allah, or Muhammad, would be POV. secondly, i simply used employed word used by the EoI. ITAQALLAH 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the recent change by Proabivouac is fine. ITAQALLAH 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd anticipated this problem, and I suggest that this formula provides a worthy template for steering clear of it in the future wherever it might arise.
I also note that no one is saying what the "rumor" actually is. There is no reason not to be specific: it is that, during this expedition, Aisha cheated on Muhammad.Proabivouac 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political opposition only?

[edit]

So the story of Aisha is political???? --Aminz 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for riding a dead horse. However, what are the sources this allegation is based on? The other non-political opposition (promising help to the Banu Nadir) is as far as I can see not based in sources and actually contradicting Ibn Ishaq (who talks about unbelievers). Str1977 (smile back) 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we're not here to work as historians, or to draw conlusions from primary sources (by the way, don't you mean "beating" a dead horse?). Ibn Ishaq isn't exactly accurate every time, anyway. ITAQALLAH 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abd-Allah vs Ibn Ubbay

[edit]

please do not replace "Ibn Ubayy" with "AbdAllah", it makes the tone inappropriately informal, and is not employed in any academic work to my knowledge. Ibn Ubayy is encyclopedic, and of the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. ITAQALLAH 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not speak nonsense. Str1977 (smile back) 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have listed several reasons why we should employ usage of "Ibn Ubayy." you have provided no legitimate response, and cannot produce one academic work supporting your opinion. ITAQALLAH 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740 proclaims that he studies the talk page before reverting. i don't believe he has in this instance, and he should read through this discussion before reverting to reintroduce poor style. as Str apparently has read the EoI article on Ibn Ubayy, he should know that it correctly addresses him as Ibn Ubayy. opting for "Abdallah", in spite of this, in opposition to the standard naming conventions, and without any justification of substance, is inappropriate. ITAQALLAH 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a common Arab practice to call people by the name of their fathers, e.g. "Ibn Abbas", etc etc. We also have other forms. As far as I know there was one "Ibn Ubbay" but not one "Abd-Allah". Abd-Allah was a quite common name.--Aminz 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str says that the convention of referring to someone by last name or patronym is a modern convention. As he is, I believe, a historian, I take his word on this over yours. It is clear who is Abd-Allah, is it not? Arrow740 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a common Arab practice to call people by the name of their fathers, e.g. "Ibn Abbas", etc etc. We also have other variants as well. As far as I know there was one "Ibn Ubbay" but not one "Abd-Allah". Abd-Allah was a quite common name.--Aminz 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he was referred to as Abd-Allah while alive and it is clear that he is the Abd-Allah referred to, is it not preferable to use Abd-Allah? Arrow740 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people more famous than Ibn Ubbay who were named Abd Allah. e.g. the father of Muhmamd. It was a common name. We have one famous Ibn Ubbay. --Aminz 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and i bet Norman Stillman is referred to as Norman by everyone he knows. for formal, academic and encyclopedic purposes, we use the last names or their Arabic equivalents. the EoI reflects this, and does Rodinson. so do academic works in general, referring to Arabs by their kunya and not their first name, barring the exceptions where the person's first name has been popularised. ITAQALLAH 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as an irrelevant side note, i also doubt that he was referred to as simply 'AbdAllah', there were hundreds of AbdAllah's in his time. it is likely that he would be referred to using a distinguishable kunya of some sort. even Muhammad was frequently referred to by his people as Abu'l-Qasim. ITAQALLAH 01:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaq, are you serious. Stillman is not a 7th century Arab. Browse through WP and you will find hundreds of articles named for their first name, either alone (consider Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muawija, Saladin etc.) together with a patronymics (Husayn ibn Ali) or together with a sur/nickname (Muhammad al-Mahdi).
True, there are many Abdallahs and this one is just one. However, this is his own article. Most encyclopedias would refer to someone in his own article by a single letter, which in this case would be A.. In his own article Abdallah has the right to be referred to by his name unless this name is completely out of use, as e.g. in the cases of Ibn Abbas or Abu Bakr. But you haven't shown that it is in our case. "Abdullah ibn Uthman" or "Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafah" is used only seldomly, whereas our man here is referred to by his normal name and the patronymic, to distinguish him from all the other Abdallahs. Abbreviating this here and there to Ibn Ubayy for brevity's sake - especially when another Abdallah appears - is all right. But not the comprehensive replacement of the name with the patronymic.
The "informal" argument is completely void, as using the first name is completely normal at this time.
Str1977 (smile back) 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have already stated my points. people were generally referred to by other than their first name in pre-modern Arabia, that much is certain if you consult classical Islamic scholarly texts. there are, of course, the obvious exceptions- which as i say were popularised into common usage, such as the examples you gave above. it was certainly not a custom of scholars to refer to people by their first names only speaking in formal tone. regardless, that is irrelevant here: the article is supposed to be a modern, academic piece; not a classical Arab tract. as i have stated: a lot of the directive to use it is mainly because modern historians use it, and that it comes across as more formal and detached. ITAQALLAH 11:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have not convinced me (and having stated your points does not prove their validity). I still say that
a) we must use the practices current at AAiU's time (and part of your argument assumes this) and not fall for modern notions of family name.
b) Patronymics were not the standard way of referring to people. Note, I am not pushing for some exclusive usage of AA (straw man #1) - opposed to your exclusive pushing of Ibn Ubayy - or of a first name only (straw man #2). After all, the title makes clear who we are talking about and using AA is a logical conclusion from that title.
However, I will put this issue on a shelf to deal with other, more important issues in this article. The AAiU vs. AA vs. iU issue can be changed any time very quickly. Str1977 (smile back) 10:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pure waste of time. Whatever. Let's use the full name everywhere. --Aminz 10:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Aminz. Let's be reasonable about this and not try to introduce a "it always must be X" attitude. That's actually what's bothering me in this issue. Str1977 (smile back) 10:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: your comments above. a) says who? besides, i'm not sure you are really that familiar with Arab custom. this has nothing to do with "modern notions of family name." in any case, the article aims to be a reflection of academic discourse, not primary sources. b) "I am not pushing for some exclusive usage of AA (straw man #1)" that's the impression i was getting. the second straw man you highlight is the same as the first. i see no reason to interchange between Ibn Ubayy and AbdAllah, it makes the prose less fluent by switching from formal to less-than-formal. i see no problem, however, with interchanging between AbdAllah ibn Ubayy and Ibn Ubayy. ITAQALLAH 16:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>a)Another bad faith assumption. And it's quite amusing that an editor who advocates the use of sources such as Maududi and Mubarakpuri insists that to refer to a man the way he was known in his day is unacceptable due to the need to "be a reflection of academic discourse." b)Note that changing every instance of Abd-allah to Ibn Ubayy is a way of pushing for every reference to him to be of the form "Ibn Ubayy." Arrow740 16:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Another bad faith assumption" yet more needless (and pointless) rhetoric. "to refer to a man the way he was known in his day" this is simply unproven original research, and you have no basis on which to claim this. it doesn't matter how he was referred to in his time, whether that was an honorary title, an embarrasing nickname, or otherwise. as for the rest of the poorly masked ad hominem, Mubarakpuri and Maududi are usable to reflect the viewpoint presented in Muslim narrative. ITAQALLAH 17:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other concerns

[edit]
  • Which primary sources is the claim regarding the Nadir based on? Ibn Ishaq doesn't say this and even may contradict this. This should be reworded.
  • Where has the fact gone, that Abdallah's son, "a good Muslim" (I think not), wanted to kill his father?

Str1977 (smile back) 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems to me rather biased writing: "During the expedition of Banu Mustaliq, the incidence of a quarrel between the Ansar and the Muhajirun was used by Ibn Ubayy to try to undermine Muhammad's authority." Is this, like the following sentence, sourced to Watt, or does it have no source? I wonder if there isn't a more specific and less prejudicial manner in which we might present this material.

Proabivouac 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I overread until now is this passage, quoting AAiU: "By Allah, in your place I would fear a reversal of fortune!" - can please everyone check all possible translations. the "in your place" is new to me. What I read didn't include that element and I fear it is a interpretive translation, meaning that it gives the sentence a spin. In translation one should always opt for the more general, comprehensive option.

I was of the opinion that AAiU is talking about himself, that he fears changing fortunes and doesn't want to be robbed of his clients. In any case "in your place" (coupled with the now gladly removed characterization of this as a "threat") again drives home the alleged general enmity between the two men, when AAiU might as well have included the Muslim community (because, despite all protestations, he was a Muslim - important for the Nadir issue) in his fears: that there could be a backlash against it, Muhammad and Abdallah included. Str1977 (smile back) 10:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to know where this information comes from about the date of AAiU's conversion and about the numbers of Muslims. "Most Jathribis had adopted Islam" - says who? I think this claim without foundation and possibly false. Str1977 (smile back) 10:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, parroting the EoI is POV pushing as well. This is an article by Watt, a respected scholar, but still a view and not simply fact. Str1977 (smile back)

re: [1]. Rodinson, from whom the passage is quoted, refers to it as a "threat." re: [2] i saw no problem with writing 'unjustified' (i.e. from the viewpoint of Ibn Ubayy), because both Watt and Rodinson describe it as such. ITAQALLAH 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, although repeating EoI does put a certain academic perspective on the article, you should feel free to provide alternate perspectives sourced to reliable sources.Bless sins 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New overhaul

[edit]

Str, i have trouble understanding why you have reinstated references to Glubb. he isn't a historian, and there is nothing suggesting that his opinion is significant. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah, thanks for responding
First of all, we never concluded the Glubb discussion. He is not a historian as such, I grant you that but he transports traditions just as the Sealed Nectar does (unfortunately without clearly giving the source). I have used him as an additional reference. If he is not acceptable, there is no reaon to delete this right away. Other articles have fact tags, sometime for much longer.
Secondly, could you please specify your concerns, what you think POV or in need of further reference.
Thirdly, the main thing I have done is dePOV the info taken from the existing sources, especially the Encyclopedia of Islam and even added more, even if I disagreed with it. This wasn't easy as in some places Watt simply errs not on matters of analysis but on facts (he says Muhammad asked an assemby to be allowed to punish Abdallah with incurring a blood feud - I am quite certain that this is the same event referred to by Muir that a Aws chief made the request).
I can safely say that I learned a lot about these things that Watt (or Glubb or others) never told about, e.g. in the Nadir affair.
So please, Itaq, specify your concerns so that we can move forward.
Str1977 (smile back) 09:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>ok. not an exhaustive list but some of the primary concerns are associated with (inappropriately, i believe) awarding prominence to the opinion of Glubb. these cites need to be founded in academic opinion:

  • Ibn Ubayy "used every effort to end the fraticidal strive" <ref name="Glubb 142"/> and achieved a partial reconciliation between the two factions, which both recognized the leadership of Ibn Ubayy.<ref name="Glubb 161">Glubb (2002), p. 161, 164f.</ref>
  • The arrival of a man who claimed to speak in the name of God eclipsed Ibn Ubayy's influence. This provoked his jeaulousy, which he was careful to conceal, but was mitigated by his moderation and peacefulness. Ibn Ubayy nonetheless remained a well-respected man.<ref name="Glubb 161"/>
  • Being second only to Muhammad, Ibn Ubayy became a "figurehead for those Arabs of Medina who, openly or secretly, sneered at the Prophet's teaching and complained of the confusion and the danger which the coming of the Muslims had brought to Medina"...
  • However, Ibn Ubayy had not defended the Qaynuqa but merely pleaded for mercy. His plea implies that Muhammad intended to put the Qaynuqa to death, as he later did with the Banu Qurayza, but after Ibn Ubayy's intercession, they were merely expelled from Medina – their property falling to Muhammad and the Muhajirun
  • ... possibly because they knew it was guarded by Ibn Ubayy
    • here you have given Glubb's position primacy, making Rodinson's the alternative. that is inappropriate considering that Rodinson is qualified in this field and Glubb is not. ITAQALLAH 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sequence flows naturally, as the first interpretation is the more obvious one while Rodinson's is a bit more contrived and complicated. Str1977 (smile back) 07:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"as the first interpretation is the more obvious one" that is your opinion, and for encyclopedic purposes it is of little value. all that matters is that we have one reason sourced to an academic, and one sourced to a non-scholar, who shouldn't even be used in this article. ITAQALLAH 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not "my opinion" but mere common sense. And the view is not actually attributed only to Glubb. Str1977 (smile back) 07:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the Banu Nadir section has been made a mess. the Banu Nadir article on EoI clearly states that Ibn Ubayy was involved. EoI is one of the best academic references we could aspire to use. yet, this has been removed in favour of making the prose ambiguous, presumably to add weight to Glubb's opinion. as for Rodinson's apparent 'mistranslation': what makes you believe there aren't multiple reports on this episode? and why replace Rodinson with Muir when Rodinson's translation is more appropriate as a contemporary translation? as for the mention of Sealed Nectar: the difference is that Mubarakpuri's opinion at least holds weight from the perspective that he is a trained Islamic scholar, learned in sira. we can at least implement him when attributing something to the Muslim viewpoint. what substantial view does Glubb represent? ITAQALLAH 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the matter is not that easy. Watt, who wrote the EoI article, doesn't do a good job, providing zero nuance and claiming things without a reasoning (and containing serious errors such as the one corrected here. Ibn Ubayy is the villain and that's it in this article. This has nothing to do at all with Glubb. Watt claims that Ibn Ubayy encouraged the Nadir, when Ibn Ishaq says that they were encouraged by infidels. At the beginning, I knew no more. Then I had a look into Muir and found the sources that Watt was lacking and found out the details. I don't see how the section can be legitimately called a mess. It certainly was inaccurate before. I placed Muir's translation because it seems less interpretative than Rodinson, even if the language might seem archaic. "In your place" seems quite distinct from anything I read and it is placing an interpretation into the translation. Maybe you can provide your expertise in translating this passage from Arabic? And no, the Sealed Nectar is just as bad (or good) as Glubb. What you mean by "substantial view" I do not know. Str1977 (smile back) 07:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vacca wrote the EoI article on Banu Nadir. as for your correcting an apparent 'serious error', i see nothing wrong with what Watt wrote. you can consider whatever you like to be a "blunder by Watt," it does not belong on the encyclopedia however if it has no academic backing. you must understand: you and i are not reliable sources. your findings are of little consequence, and using them to favour one view over another in encyclopedic entires is absolute original research. it doesn't matter what Ibn Ishaq says: you assume that Ibn Ishaq is the only early source on the matter. similarly, you assume that Rodinson must have been consulting the version of the narrative as presented by Ibn Ishaq, and that he could surely not have seen another primary report available documenting the incident. again, this is the kind of original research we should be avoiding at all costs. ITAQALLAH 07:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a key feature of these extensive edits is that they have consistently reinstated Glubb's opinion as factual, whereas other opinions conflicting with this are made attributive. considering that i had attempted a rewrite with academic sources, it is not appropriate to skew the article with Glubb's opinion and then suggest we wait for stronger sourcing. that was the whole point of the rewrite in the first place. i will not proceed to edit the article yet, however. ITAQALLAH 01:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds strange, given the fact that the previous version had Abdallah factually encouraging the Nadir without any regard to the sources (I refer to the historical sources, such as Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi etc. - not some Watt scribble). However, where the attribution is missing it can be added ... if the view is controversial. It is not my fault that Watt's treatment of the man is so crappy, unbecoming of a scholar of his stature. In the cases, Glubb was unattributed he was intended only as a supporting provider of details and I still think that this is what he is doing here. Str1977 (smile back) 07:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir section

[edit]

it is not Watt who wrote the EoI Nadir article which sourced the Nadir section. it was Vacca. we are writing an encyclopedia. we are not meant to pose as historians. your personal findings, or your review of primary sources, are not usable. Vacca states that Ibn Ubayy encouraged Nadir, and there have been no scholarly sources provided contesting this. in his article on Ibn Ubayy, Watt concurs with Vacca. ITAQALLAH 07:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Watt's article on Abdallah IbnUbayy. As for primary sources, this is why I brought in Muir. And based on what I read in his book provided me with the sources (which Watt clearly missed and as far as I can remember Vacca as well - I will reread this now). We don't "pose as historians" but we do not blindly parrot Watt (maybe you would address his blunder) and Vacca either.
As for "Vacca states that Ibn Ubayy encouraged Nadir, and there have been no scholarly sources provided contesting this." Thanks to Muir I can relate to that analysis to and thanks to Muir we can adequately include it into the article. On another note, please place an article in front of the Nadir. Str1977 (smile back) 07:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"but we do not blindly parrot Watt and Vacca either" - actually, we do. we are supposed to relate what the secondary and tertiary scholarly sources say on the topic, and that is all. ITAQALLAH 08:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't (blindly parrot them).
According to your reasoning, all our articles would look like this:
Scholar A states (verbatim quote). Scholar B states (verbatim quote). Scholar C states (verbatim quote). Scholar D states (verbatim quote). Scholar E states (verbatim quote). ...
However, already that is impossible, as who is to say when the quote has to start and to stop, which scholar to chose (not for credentials but for topicality).
We, as editors, relate what scholars say but it is us, as editors, that organize and write the articles.
As for Vacca, I have now re-read his article and see him in no way better than Watt's. It merely contains a factual statement of what IU did - but things are not that easy. I don't know how anyone interested in clear and broad information could object to the current wording of the Nadir section, as it - in the end - relates what Watt and Vacca say but make the source basis for this much clearer. Str1977 (smile back) 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
by 'parroting' them, i mean that our responsibility lies in representing the secondary sources (and thus academic opinion), and that is all. we do not assess and interpret primary sources, or use primary sources to discount reliable secondary sources. i see no reason to discount Vacca and Watt, even Muir states that Ibn Ubayy was the instigator. ITAQALLAH 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I speficially used the term "parroting" to describe the wrong way of dealing with the so-called secondary sources, i.e. scholarly literature. Nothing in WP forbids the mentioning of primary sources. Muir uses them, therefore they are covered by a secondary source and not OR. We should give this a proper treatment, which includes an account of the pr. You do not do this. Though you say you "restore a scholarly version" you actually remove the scholarly parts and turn it into storytelling for the credulous. Do not remove information. Also, using Glubb is a silly pretext, as in this instance he merely says what other say too (that the promised help did not come). You apparently don't want a proper treatment of the episode, being content with the sub-standard treatment by Watt & Vacca. DO NOT delete information. Thank you.
Also, you re-inserted the flat out endorsing (and therefore pov-pushing) "Over the following two years, he actively intruiged against him." Quite apart from the typo (can you see it) this is endorsing Watt's POV. My version included this view without endorsing it. STOP the POV-pushing. Thank you. Str1977 (smile back) 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you claim i am "POV-pushing" with Watt, yet you cannot bring a single academic contesting his claim. we must note that it is Muir interpreting the primary sources and using them as a basis for his claims: and as such the claims should be attributed to him. again, that you believe it is "sub-standard treatment by Watt & Vacca" doesn't and shouldn't mean much to me: they are academics and you (and i) are not. ITAQALLAH 18:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaq, other "sources" are welcome, sure, but I do not need them to call pov pushing pov pushing. What Watt and Vacca write is their POV and if we endorse this POV it is POV pushing. I or rather "my version" does not actually negate what they are writing but provides, via Muir - who in the end agrees with them regarding facts, the proper basis in the sources, a thing I would have expected from Watt. And that's what I meant by calling their articles sub-standard - sub-standard as far as Wikipedia goes - in contrast to WP other encyclopediae don't adhere to the NPOV policy. Nothing more, nothing less. As for Muir: what is "his claim"? He simply narrates the life of Muhammad. In this section there is not so much a claim but a presentation of the sources which is IMHO useful to our reader. Also, I think it a bit inconsistent of you that you OTOH have no problem with a version flat out endorsing Watt & Vacca's view without even acknowledging that there is a view dimension to it (the text simply stated that it was like this and that Abdallah did that etc.) but then turn around and demand an attribution for what you call "Muir's claim". Your second position would be the correct stance regarding any claim put forth by Muir. But in our case here I see no such claim, only a presentation of the different sources. Per OR, I wouldn't be allowed to create one myself - except for a very clear statement that book A says B. But Muir, being a RS, already does it and he is quotable. Str1977 (smile back) 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>Str, marginalising those highly scholarly sources which you do not concur with is highly inappropriate. Muir is not presenting sources, he is presenting his narrative based upon the sources, so the claims the work makes are from his interpretations. this "sub-standard" rhetoric is inappropriate: other publications are not required to adhere to NPOV: they present their POVs which they conclude are most accurate. quite clearly, the editors at the reputed encyclopedia of Islam decided that Watt's and Vacca's analyses of the subjects were the most appropriate, which is why they included them. there should be no issue with relating what they say to be fact, as long as there are no notable POVs opposing them in their claims, which as we know is something yet to be verified. ITAQALLAH 09:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watt & Vacca are not marginalised, even less so in comparison to "your version", which didn't mention them at all ... which is precisely the problem.
Specify what you mean by "Muir's claims".
Other publications are indeed not bound by NPOV - BUT WE ARE and hence we cannot just "parrot" them, even if they are encyclopediae. You are mistaken about how such project work: topics are given out to scholars and who write the articles on them. Unless they produce a complete mess or nothing, the article will be printed.
"there should be no issue with relating what they say to be fact, as long as there are no notable POVs opposing them in their claims, which as we know is something yet to be verified." - But not everything here is a fact, many things are analysis. And, even if you chose to ignore that point, I DID NOT INCLUDE A OPPOSING VIEW POINT (regarding facts), but set the view regarding facts on a more stable, scholarly, insightful, informative basis.
(On two minor notes, Watt clearly committed an error in his article, turning a sentence into nonsense, and you are constantly reverting in a typo. Do you actually see it? Do you care?)
10:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
your version fails to make explicit the fact that Ibn Ubayy actively intrigued against Muhammad, as established by Watt, Vacca, and Muir. your version focuses on musings over primary sources, obscuring Ibn Ubayy's explicit involvement and central role in the affair. NPOV does not mean 'no point of view', we relate subjects the way academics have done so with neutral wording. if there are disagreements, we employ attribution. if not, there should be nothing wrong in relating what a reliable source says as fact. a typo can be fixed, it is not a pretext for reversion. ITAQALLAH 10:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "intriguing" is Watt's view and included as such, attributed to him. NPOV does not mean WPOV or VPOV or IPOV. There is no disagreement on the facts between Watt, Vacca and Muir (as far as we can see, as the former two do not lay open the details) - the strong statement by Watt is included but in an attributed form. What is wrong with this? We are aiming at informing the reader, not telling him what to think right away. As for the typo, this is a small thing in regard to the greater issues that warrant opposition. However, you either do not care about it or do not see it, or you would have corrected it in your reverts. But even without the typo, your version is unacceptable. Str1977 (smile back) 10:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have not yet provided one reason why it is "unacceptable" except that its POV is not to your taste. the section does not make explicit that Ibn Ubayy was central to the Nadir dispute, it (anachronistically) shoehorns academic opinion to one sentence at the end of the section, while the rest of it is obscure musings over primary sources, convoluting the fact that Ibn Ubayy was involved. indeed, that is what is truly unacceptable here. ITAQALLAH 10:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your telling reply:
"except that its POV is not to your taste" ... indeed, you confirm that it has a POV. And this is not in line with WP policies.
"the section does not make explicit that Ibn Ubayy was central to the Nadir dispute" ... he was not central to the dispute but merely played a small role at the end of it. If one looks at results the only "consequence" of his actions was that Muhammad cut down trees (for which Ibn Ubayy should not be blamed).
"it (anachronistically)" ... look up the word please.
"shoehorns academic opinion to one sentence at the end of the section" ... so the academic opinion consists of blaming Abdallah? I thought academic scholarship was about relating what actually happened. Which my version does.
"while the rest of it is obscure musings over primary sources" ... yes, what an absurd idea that coverage of the sources (through a secondary source, hence no OR) could be of any use. How silly of me, when we only need to state that Abdallah was a hypocrite and evil intriguing fiend and breaker of his word.
"convoluting the fact that Ibn Ubayy was involved." ... have you actually read the first sentence of the section ("my version")?
Str1977 (smile back) 11:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset>i don't think you fully understand WP:NPOV, which mandates that we represent the POVs of the academics and leave it at that. it does not mean "no point of view". "he was not central to the dispute", he was central to the dispute, for as all three academics confirm, he was the one who persuaded the Nadir to rebel. the article fails to state this explicitly. your version seeks to smudge this fact through red herrings pointing to primary sources and unencyclopedic musings such as "Other sources include or even identify these persons with Ibn Ubayy, despite the latter's adherence to Islam", while you are quite aware that Ibn Ubayy's involvement is a matter of fact. yes, placing Watt's analysis at the end of the sect is anachronistic, it belongs at the beginning of the sect in its correct chronology. your version does indeed shoehorn academic opinion, you attempted to use Muir as a guise for your previous concern of "i don't see how they came to that conclusion, they must be wrong." coverage of the sources is fine, you have used it however to obscure the fact that Ibn Ubayy was the instigator. as for the first sentence, that is terribly and deliberately ambiguous, as you know full well. ITAQALLAH 11:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You don't seem to understand the policy. Neutral point of view indeed means that the article does not have a point of view. The way to implement this aim is by including all (notable) point of views, while endorsing none. You are asking for an endorsement, nay, even worse: for an identification of that POV with the facts. That is what I call pov pushing.
"he was not central to the dispute", he was central to the dispute, for as all three academics confirm, he was the one who persuaded the Nadir to rebel." What? No one is saying that. The Nadir dispute doesn't start with the siege but with the assassination attempt on Muhammad (I am assumming that what M. said was true) Abdallah had nothing to do with this. And Abdallah was not even central to the siege either though he played an important part in its beginning and end. If the article is not explicite enough in that, maybe you can make it more explicit without reverting to a POV version.
"your version seeks to smudge this fact through red herrings pointing to primary sources and unencyclopedic musings ..." ... bad faith comments. My version tries to cover the full breadth of the events, therefore the coverage of all sources. Which is not unencyclopedic.
"such as "Other sources include or even identify these persons with Ibn Ubayy, despite the latter's adherence to Islam", while you are quite aware that Ibn Ubayy's involvement is a matter of fact." ... did I question Abdallah's involvement? No, I even put it on the top of the section a statement that HE WAS INVOLVED, whereas you preferred Watt's "Abdallah is evil evil evil" passage.
As for the "despite" part: does not Ibn Ishaq talk about unbelievers? Does that, at the first glance, seem to refer to a Muslim like Abdallah? That is the issue, that is why I was not content with Watt's simplistic coverage in the first place, looking for what the sources actually said. And they are a good enough basis for the identification (even though Watt does not help in making this clear).
You obviously have no clue about the word anachronistic.
An analysis by Watt belongs after the facts and not in front of them (or "at the beginning of the sect" - which sect, the Wattites or the Vaccaites?) - Watt's statement doesn't cover only the Nadir affair but also the stuff narrated in the following section.
My concern was never "i don't see how they came to that conclusion, they must be wrong." but "I don't see how these came to that conclusion which seems to contradict the one source I have seen. Therefore I want to know what the other sources are saying and understand how they came to their conclusion". Other readers, if they are not blind adherents to Wattism (the gullible acceptance of every utterance from the great WMW's lips), might find this interesting as well. WHY CENSOR THIS INFORMATION?
I have not used it to obscure any fact, at least not intentionally, and if you have any suggestion in improving my wording, please go ahead.
"as for the first sentence, that is terribly and deliberately ambiguous" ... actually no, it is an introduction to the whole affair. This article is about Abdallah and covers his life. Therefore we introduce the whole Nadir issue by saying that Abdallah was involved. And that is correct. What follows is a coverage of his involvement in the affair.
Str1977 (smile back) 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that is why I was not content with Watt's simplistic coverage", therein lies the problem: you seem to believe you are in a position to pass judgement upon reliable scholarly sources- and marginalise them- because they aren't in according with your own reading of primary sources. needless to say, i wouldn't trust your research which is motivating your conclusion that Watt/Vacca are wrong in their analyses- and neither should the readers.
  • "No, I even put it on the top of the section a statement that HE WAS INVOLVED", yes i can see that. can you recall what i said about it? i stated that it was extremely ambiguous, and it shies away from explaining exactly how Ibn Ubayy was involved, in clinical and factual terms. i agree, this article is about Ibn Ubayy, so it should explicitly explain his role in the affair, as verified by the Encyclopedia of Islam. i already stated i don't mind if we have mention of what Muir derives from the primary sources, you have used it to obscure the explicit involvement of Ibn Ubayy by using the narration of Ibn Ishaq and the succeeding sentence ("Other sources include or even identify these persons with Ibn Ubayy, despite the latter's adherence to Islam ...") to imply that Ibn Ubayy wasn't involved according to the Ibn Ishaq narrative. this is utterly misleading. we should relate exactly what Ibn Ubayy did, as stated in the scholarly sources.
  • "I don't see how these came to that conclusion which seems to contradict the one source I have seen. Therefore I want to know what the other sources are saying and understand how they came to their conclusion", yes, and as you believe that Watt/Vacca have no textual basis for their narrative, you are using primary sources to sidetrack verified fact. that is the epitome of original research and "POV-pushing". furthermore, you detach Watt's comment about Ibn Ubayy from its correct chronology in the narrative, moving it to the bottom of the sect- where it does not belong. ITAQALLAH 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itaq, indee I am in the position to think for myself. I am in the position to read the article I am working on. I am in the position to reflect how another reader might read it. What I am not doing is marginalizing anything. If anyone is marginalizing anything, it is you thinking we merely need to parrot Watt and that's enough.
There's nothing wrong with an introduction being "ambiguous", since it only introduces. You want the article to say that Abdallah is the most evil man in the world. The article should explicitely explain his role in the affair (period, not as verified by the EoI - the EoI is not the only book in the world) and that is what my version is doing. Your version had nothing about attempt to reconcile (which is in the sources), your version had absolutely no nuance. Abdallah just pops up and does evil, only to annoy Muhammad. I have not obscured anything. "we should relate exactly what Ibn Ubayy did, as stated in the scholarly sources." - problem is your preferred sources doesn't say a lot about it, only that he intrigued. And that is why I am so bugged about Watt's article. A man of his standing could have done better.
Itaq, stop writing nonsense: "and as you believe that Watt/Vacca have no textual basis for their narrative". You are completely misrepresenting my point. I did ask what the textual basis for that narrative was (I don't know whether you ever question anything you read) and I did find out, unfortunately not via Watt and Vacca, but at least through Muir. Now I am content with the factual gist of Watt's narrative and I therefore include Muir, who will spare other non-gullible readers the trouble of having to look for it as well. You obviously have no clue what OR is, nor what POV is, as you are constantly trying to paint Watt's villifying analysis of Abdallah (not the facts, of which he barely mentions anything) as fact. That is POV pushing. And again you are talking about some sect - again I ask the Wattites or the Vaccites? Str1977 (smile back) 18:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute seems to be dead, isn't it? Str1977 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to return to this article when the dispute cooled down a little and we both got a chance to take a step back for a bit. I find some areas problematic still, most importantly the usage of Glubb and the general presentation of the topic. ITAQALLAH 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was just asking. I have not really the time to devote much on this now but some time I think we should tackle this again. Hopefully with cooler tempers ;-) Str1977 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sometimes getting too woven into a dispute makes one lose their objectivity. I hope we can both work together to make this a good article. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV removed

[edit]

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Str1977 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Muir's orientalism

[edit]

I have removed a description of William Muir as ‘an anti Islam orientalist’. This was possibly vandalism (the edit adding it has no summary and was made anonymously), and I see there has already been discussion of Muir's suitability as a source, so I've left the Muir quotes in without the pejorative description. Maybe there's something in this, but either the point about Muir's orientalist attitude should be expanded (with sources discussing why his interpretation may not be reliable) or if it's felt that his position is so problematic that his thoughts on Ibn Ubayy don't add anything useful to this article, they should be removed completely. Andy Smith (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abd_Allah_ibn_Ubayy&oldid=1209759059"