Talk:Early Muslim-Meccan Conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Caravan raids)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

killing vs persecution[edit]

The reference on page 6 says prosecution is worse than killing it does not say prosecution of Muslims is worse than killing .Rephrase the sentence in the article --NotedGrant Talk 07:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

i tried to fix this, but i think it might be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talkcontribs) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

1st paragraph remove sentence which he reference does not support
2nd paragraph remove para as the author (the authors publishers page is blocked by wp's spam filter) does not satisfy the requirements of wp:rs or [[wp:islam]
]Civilian non-combatants were killed and their goods stolen.[1]The ref does not say so it talks about taliban and why Muhammed refused to share the loot
This appears to be a self hosted website something like self published work while this is a forum post
The article is a mess tagging the article--NotedGrant Talk 16:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


I do not agree that they are self hosted. whatever that means. it dhouldnt make a difference. anyway i have changed it. will add more references, i have provided referneces —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talkcontribs) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the other points mentioned above ,The unexplained removal of tags present in the article and the fact templates in the article --NotedGrant Talk 21:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The truth: about the five primary religions and the seven rules of any good ... By Laurel, Oracle Institute does not talk p15 does not talk about killing innocents during caravan raids

this is some sort of a blog post we need refs which comply with wp:rs--NotedGrant Talk 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • It does! am not sure what page it is.page 151. not 15.sorry about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
what about the other points raised above-NotedGrant Talk 22:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • i will add this reference soon. which says that muhammad justified killing of the quraysh (who were killed in the raid)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=92lQfWj6_VIC&pg=PA51&dq=nakhla+raid#v=onepage&q=nakhla%20raid&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talkcontribs) 22:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Also i have removed the oracle reference because it says that Muhammad stole in the caravan raids. WHich could have been used with the part in the wikipedia article which says "there goods were stolen". but i removed that part of the article which says "there goods were stolen" to.because i dont think muhammad stole. i think he just captured goods.saying muhmmad stole will create a heated debate
  1. ^ Spencer, Robert (2008), The politically incorrect guide to Islam (and the Crusades), AEG Publishing Group, p. 6, ISBN 0895260131 

please add links to this pages[edit]

Please go to other pages in wikipedia and add links to this page please.

so that it does not become an orphan page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Balanced Point of View[edit]

is he Muhammad or is he "the prophet"... it makes a big difference and both are used in various places in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.246.151.140 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources[edit]

AEG Publishing Group is a self pulishing scam [1]. Anything sourced to books published by them is unreliable.Cathar11 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if they are not reliable. the source can be used as a form of "Authors opinion" and not as a fact.So added view of Rodney Phillips back--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

only some people have probably been scammed by AEG. that does not mean that their books are not reliable. they are just a publisher. NOT THE AUTHOR. so you can not just say that "everything related to this publisher is a scam".that is rubbuish

The authors of the book ar good people. that may have been scammed by them. however, there is nto much reliable evidence that they are scams, other than forums and comments on pages. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The author of the book has a conspiracy blog. Definitely a fringe individual.Cathar11 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has been started on the reliable sources noticeboard] concerning the reliability of Rodney J. Phillips' book The Muslim Empire and the Land of Gold. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes[edit]

Using multiple infoboxes for these skirmishes seems OTT and unnescessary. They should be removed.Cathar11 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OTT? Infoboxes are good for long articles in that they provide a nice summary of the article. But here the entire information about a raid is just a paragraph or two, about the size of an infobox itself. I share your opinion that the article is better off without them -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you both, as the too many boxes are confusing to the readers. They're larger than the text itself, so I removed them and just kept the main one. ~ AdvertAdam talk 12:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for review[edit]

I have done a massive reedit of the article. It was basically copyediting, cleanup, structuring, removing uncited statements and all that. I have also commented out a section in the end that did not seem to belong to this article at all. Perhaps I have done something stupid or wrong somewhere. A review will be greatly appreciated. Most of the article is based on two books "The life of Muhammad" and "When the moon split". I really think we need more sources for many things that are in the article. -- Raziman T V (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Caravan raids[edit]

Why does Caravan Raids in the Campaigns of Muhammad infobox point to Ghazw instead of here? Surely this is the article on the actual raids? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the redirect -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

white wash[edit]

i beleive this article may have been whitewashed? all the sources used the the article are muslims sources? a lot of pretext which dont think is historial, have been added as facts. i think users should consider adding the source "Life of Mahomet" by sir william muir, to balance the views--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As discussed with you personally, the first priority is to try together to fix the citations, on whatever we can. Each book citation needs an author, title, publisher, and page no. Happy editing ~ AdvertAdam talk 05:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You claimed here the books have "no publishers", and are "hard to verify", but almost all sources used are book which have publishers and authors name, and page number. Not only that, almost all links are DIRECT links to the source, and to the page !

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids#References

i hope you agree that 95% of the links are direct links, even ones that dont look like didrect links, have the title as blue, which also go directly to the page. i hope you admit that you were wrong about it not having the page number anf being hard to verify ! Furthermore, on wikipedia t is standard that when a source is repeated, it only says the start and end page (in reference section), and to know which page its reffering to, you need to press the edit button. it will say the page number in the ref tag.

i maybe wrong about it being a standard, but this is what i have seen most of the time when sources repeat --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making claims that you know nothing about. I bet you want me to lie and say that I was lying, so you can open another friendly claim on ANI. Listen, don't take everything personally as I told you before to keep our connection professionally, only; because I saw that explaining everything is just a waste of time, because the same topics get opened again and again.
Straight to the point. Citations are for readers, not us. Book citations require to have written the author, page no., title, and publisher. So yes, many citations need to be fixed; you can work on the unlinked citations, while I work on the linked ones (I know that you're the main editor of this page). I suggest using the following template, "{{cite book|last=|first=|title=|publisher=|date=|page=|isbn=}}", if you usually get confused. Repeated sources can use something called "ref name=", in the citation templates page.
I'm wondering how can you put a citation like this, while I gave you WP:RS a million times. What's the editor's relationship with history if he's a medical sorgent! Also, it's his (and his brother's) little self-published website.
Take care and happy editing Peace.gif ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

offensive in nature[edit]

added back "offensive in nature" phrase, the person made that list is an author called mosab harawey. its from this book. http://www.islamic-book.net/ar/Rihlat-Alnobowwah.htm , published by the islamic book trust. not self published

but now i need to find the page--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't just revert things you don't know. I just shortened the citation. I DID NOT delete any of them. The citation and the other brothers' books are from a self-published source. I'm still respecting you by not deleting anything, but the source has to go. I left and I'm still leaving the sentence, so STOP your random reverting. I've spent time on this, so keep it polite if you want me to respond politely!
The infobox has a separate discussion section Talk:Caravan_raids#Infoboxes, so follow-up there. ~ AdvertAdam talk 12:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, i added another reference for the offensive tag. see here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EOZZCcXbc5QC&pg=PA241 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

i think the info boxes should stay for major battles, i also did not rvert all your edits (that would be annoying), you can see i kept your removal of the info boxes (as that and the offensive in nature claim is all your removed), also those other users who you claim wanted to remove the boxes, did not remove it a year ago, see the history--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article on hold GA on holdI've spent alot of time on that edit, so please revert your edit NOW. If you don't do-so, I'll be calling an admin immediately; as if I revert, we'll both get blocked. We can discuss each section seperately, but you can't make massive revert. ~ AdvertAdam talk 12:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


ok, admin preffered. you are the one who made a major edit first. yet you dont consider it major? you also reverted the offensive in nature claim just recently, even though it was properly referenced. you only allowed that to stay, after doc tropics reverted your edit. Also, STOP removing main article tags !!!! this article contains many expeditions which have articles of their own, they should stay because the article only summarises the main articles!--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
The tags were an accident, which went with the infoboxes. Last-time, will you return my edits, keep the 3 infoboxes you chose, the article tags, and keep my syn tag with your source till the discussion ends. Agree or not, straight forward?

agree, i will do that--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Works for me. I'm heading to sleep, it's light already here :p (5:53AM). Finish the party tomorrow. I'll work on a couple more references after your revert. ~ AdvertAdam talk 12:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

When i say you tried to hide the note. i meant hiding it from the view of the wikipedia viewers (sothat it can only be seen if you press the edit button), see here hide text. also, just so you know, i did add back the synthesis tag. but fellow wikipedian, doc tropics removed it. please discuss that issue with him. i am sure he will give you a good reason why he removed it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the readers don't need to know that this was un-cited for 1.5 years. I added the hidden tag for editors to realize that the content will be removed if a citations isn't added. ~ AdvertAdam talk 00:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

New Edits for[edit]

Made edits from the following Ip's:182.188.215.197 and 182.188.168.93 on Aug 29,2013. Included adding citations,grammar fixes and adding a neutral touch to the article instead of a "Islam is nothing but looting caravans" tone. Added a better translation of a verse with a few lines of explanation from "The sealed Nectar".Imrpoved the intro,Nakhla and the Invasion of Waddan.

New Edits for[edit]

Made edits from the following Ip's:182.188.215.197 and 182.188.168.93 on Aug 29,2013. Included adding citations,grammar fixes and adding a neutral touch to the article instead of a "Islam is nothing but looting caravans" tone. Added a better translation of a verse with a few lines of explanation from "The sealed Nectar".Imrpoved the intro,Nakhla and the Invasion of Waddan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RunawayFridge (talkcontribs) 18:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete -- article is worth keeping[edit]

Having detail on various raids is extremely helpful to research — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerbM (talkcontribs) 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)