Talk:Zayd ibn Harithah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

The article was a mess. I completely rewrote it. I did not check the facts given in the previous version of the article. Since they are completely unreferenced, there may still be inaccuracies. I did get some material from Watt. I will add a references section when I have time. Also left a Qur'anic reference blank. Need to look that up.

I removed bit re Zayd's son -- if this wasn't Zaynab's son, then there must have been another marriage. I can't find that info. Let's leave the son out until we can figure out who his mother was. Zora 08:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Zora, Zayd's first wife was the ex-slave Baraka, who is in fact mentioned in this very article! Their son Usama was too young to fight at Uhud but he was allowed to fight at the Trench, so he must have been born in 611 or 612. According to Ibn Saad's Tabaqat, Zayd married at least four times and had at least three children.Grace has Victory (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Your ignorance is as great as your ego. This is the last time i address you in any way. May you have a terrible life, death and afterlife. --Striver 17:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article is a mess. The information about Zayd's having been a slave, declining to return to his natural family, then being freed and adopted by Muhammad - is all described three times, with next to no new information in each retelling. The facts about his early life should be collapsed into one single narrative with no repetitions.Grace has Victory (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

cleanup[edit]

No sources, poor language, missing wikipedic form. --tickle me 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to ibn[edit]

Striver, you linked Zayd, ibn, and Harithah. I removed the links. They are absolutely unnecessary -- in fact, they're confusing. I kept your note re dark skin, but moved it lower. Zora 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The editing was good, good job, but why did you de-link them, why are they confusing? I find it informative to get the meaning of the names.... --Striver 07:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Linking isn't the way to explain names -- you just put something in the text. However, I don't think it's necessary to explain ibn or bint -- or if they're to be explained, linking to Arabic names might be a better choice.
I don't think that we link to "de" or "von" or suchlike particles in articles about Europeans. Zora 08:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed.[edit]

I am once again removing the following sentence because it has lacked a source for some time.

He lived with Muhammad and Khadijah in their household in the city of Mecca, in the Hijaz region of western Arabia. [citation needed]

Please do not revert it without adding a source. I refer you to the following, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material .

Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material.
To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material:
# If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So why are you just choosing to remove that last part of that section? For all you know, the guy adding the tag might had something against the entire section. Or maybe, he acctualy liked the section, and simply requested for the source of the great info? What makes you so confident that it must be removed, and that it is only that randomly selected last part of the entire section that must go? Again, the info is not controversial and is informative, IMHO, just remove the tag. --Striver 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed as little as possible. There seem to be other assertions in the article that are unsourced as well, but nobody has specifically asked for sources on them. Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And that is were my objection comes in, you are assuming that the one who added the tag wants the info removed, and you are assuming that you have pinpointed the subject of the tag, and i see no evidence of either assumption. Please provide evidence for the assumption, or stop removing informative text that needs mere sourcing. Peace. --Striver 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just following WikiP policy. As a great man once said, "I just work here." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, we all do - lets keep intending and working to improve wikipedia :) --Striver 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Link[edit]

I have noticed that you have added Disambiguation link of his children Zayd, such links are appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by International Editor Shah (talkcontribs) 10:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Source[edit]

The Passage is referenced to three different sources but there is a problem, Reference Books contains information related to subject but the content of this Passage represent an entire different story.

SpyButeo (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited the passage per Source. SpyButeo (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)