Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Trench

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.10.35.10 (talk) at 22:08, 30 October 2006 (imo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Medieval Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

I addded some information on who exactly the Muslims were fighting, as well as what exactly is behind the name "Battle of the Trench". I used Safiur-Rahman Mubarakpuri award-winning "The Sealed Nectar" as the source behind the changes I made.

--Nabilqureshi 14:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the 3 links which were clearly anti-islamic; actually, the Karen Armstrong one wasn't anti-Islamic, but someone seems to have highlighted the anti-Islamic parts. I've added a link (with references to various sources) which discusses the battle and no more. ---Mpatel (talk) 15:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


pov

Mekkan pagans does not equate with mekkans.

And hypocrits does not equate with non-Muslims.

--Striver 11:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use labels such as hypocrits and pagans here. We are supposed to make the tone of the articles as disinterested as possible. -- Karl Meier 16:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the word munafiq = hypocrite, was actually used by the people at that time for the many in Mediana who converted only in name and actually supported the Meccen cause. So it is not POV.

Have to agree with Karl Meier on this point, but I wouldn't use 'disinterested', more , 'neutral'. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

caravans

Didn't Mecca attack because Mohammed was raiding their caravans?

Yeah, but that was after Muhammed had had several assasination attempts made on him by the Qurayshites (Meccans). Not to mention the fact that his followers had been boycotted from all trade (including food), and forced into ghettos. To top it all off, Muhammed did not kill anyone when he raided their caravans. At best, the attacks was extremely excessive act of revenge, if it was indeed an act of revenge, and not another attempt to get rid of the Quraysh's political adversary.

--Loki Laufeyson 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New section: "Qur'an's narration of the Battle"

Suggestion: Adding a section containing the relevant Qur'anic verses (e.g. [Quran 33:9]) --Aminz 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

This article is totally unsourced. Might someone explain to me where they got all these facts?Timothy Usher 19:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Usher, the writer of this article has given two external links (http://www.thewaytotruth.org/prophetmuhammad/trench.html and http://www.al-islamforall.org/Ghazwat/ghazwat/trench.htm) at the bottom of the article. The author got the information from those two websites. Thank You [[User:Salman01|Salman]

The whole article is pretty much a verbatim cut and paste from here:

http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml

Rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite. As it stands, tt is a heap of absurd claims written in unwikipedic language. Pecher Talk 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecher, can you please be more specific. Can you please point out the part of the article where u think “unwikipedic language” occurred? Someone might not see the mistake that u are seeing, because the mistake that u are talking about may not be a mistake in reality, since u r looking it from your POV. So can you please point out the reason why u think this article should be rewritten, and if you point is valid then my brother I am (along with other wikipedians) going to try my best to help you as much as possible. Thank You Salman

imo

"Most scholars of this episode agree that neither party acted outside the bounds of normal relations in 7th century Arabia. . ."

killing 700 seems harsh for a Holy Man. . .

Matt Cutugno

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Trench&oldid=84707506"