Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Trench

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

Good articleBattle of the Trench has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 31, 2014, and March 31, 2016.

Ikrima ibn Abi Jahl was a leading commander

[edit]

Ikrima ibn Abi Jahl was a leading commander along with Abd Al Al Wad according to his own page. فضائل الصحابة (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. R Prazeres (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"According to his own page" because you added it yourself without citing any sources. Misleading statement aside, other Wikipedia articles don't count as sources. If the information is supported, add citations to reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::I didn’t add anything onto the page Amr ibn Abd al-Wud, stop involving yourself in topics you have no knowledge of. فضائل الصحابة (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. R Prazeres (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did it literally right here, after you had already added it here. Both times unsourced. And your personal attacks are familiar. R Prazeres (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

[edit]

Please change any instances of Prophet "Muhammad" to "Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)" or similar. I believe it is a sin in Islam to not include the latter part. Thanks! Azmaine21 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See WP:PBUH RudolfRed (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to hide your bias better

[edit]

Just read the Britannica article for how to be neutral and try not to present stories in the worst light possible. Present history openly, be honest about sources, differences in sources, when it's your opinion etc. That kind of thing. 129.12.158.116 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to an overreliance of block quotes and some uncited statements. Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What in particular do you find problematic in the article? Not that I am denying your claim - I also think it has its fair share of issues. Daminb (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daminb: Would you like me to tag the article with "citation needed" templates to indicate uncited prose? I think in the "Islamic primary sources" section, the large block quotes without analysis from secondary sources is problematic. I also do not think the Quran should be relied upon as a source of information, but rather this battle's mention in the Quran should be written about, with analysis from more recent secondary sources giving context to the quotes. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean go ahead with your suggestions for citations, I guess. Although for "Islamic primary sources" I think it does not make sense to include secondary sources; the rest of the article uses them. I get your concern about the giant block quotes, though. In my opinion, it would be best to just summarise the positions of the primary sources with our own, more concise wording.
Also, I would like to ask you, do you see any issues in the neutrality of the tone of the opening section. I have been going over a certain problematic user's edits all day, so I can no longer tell what is neutral and what is not. I rely on your judgement. Daminb (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Also, I get your concern about the Qur'an in the other sections. Again, we could either summarise, remove (since it is not the primary sources section), move to primary sources and summarise, or just add secondary source's comments of the verses in the main section. I think all are equally good options (although remove would be a bit of a bummer, to my mind). Daminb (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]