Xtremedood (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Delete |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
*'''Keep''' Afd is the wrong location to resolve a content dispute. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 23:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Afd is the wrong location to resolve a content dispute. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 23:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
::The content literally spans nearly several dozen articles. This justifies [[Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over]], which states: "''A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over.''" The extreme POV, bias, and misinformation is so much that it deserves a restart. Not to mention it is simply a rehash of two already deleted articles which are [[List of killings of Muhammad]] and [[Muhammad and assassinations]]. See above for the deletion discussions. Also, the user was once indefinitely banned, but was allowed to operate again. [[User:Xtremedood|Xtremedood]] ([[User talk:Xtremedood|talk]]) 01:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
::The content literally spans nearly several dozen articles. This justifies [[Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over]], which states: "''A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over.''" The extreme POV, bias, and misinformation is so much that it deserves a restart. Not to mention it is simply a rehash of two already deleted articles which are [[List of killings of Muhammad]] and [[Muhammad and assassinations]]. See above for the deletion discussions. Also, the user was once indefinitely banned, but was allowed to operate again. [[User:Xtremedood|Xtremedood]] ([[User talk:Xtremedood|talk]]) 01:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. All else aside, this fails [[WP:LISTN]], in that few reliable sources seem to focus on the ''group'' or ''set'' of expeditions by independent reliable sources. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 14:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:13, 15 March 2016
List of expeditions of Muhammad
- List of expeditions of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Xtremedood nominated this but could not finish it, I will let him fill this in Misconceptions2 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like you just couldn't wait for me to finish posting the opening. Xtremedood (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There are a multitude of issues with these articles and the author of these articles.
Issues with the Article:
The user, Misconceptions2, has dedicated a lot of effort at creating a significant sum of articles, which consist of his own original research (WP:NOR) , involves a large sum of misattribution of sources, is slanderous, violates WP:NPOV and is non academic in nature, but rather rehashes materials from notable hate sites like wikiislam.net. The following article List of expeditions of Muhammad was first published by him, with non-academic and biased materials. This article was simply a repost of his previously deleted articles, “List of killings of Muhammad (discussion over here [1], and [2]) and Muhammad and assassinations (discussion over here [3]), which were all deleted. The article is also largely copied from the notoriously anti-Islamic website, www.wikiislam.net, which over here [4], [5], consists of much of the same materials and slanderous original research, which are not accurate. There are many articles; however, they all consist of similar biases by the user, similar original research, and similar misattribution of sources for biased and slanderous statements. There are many examples, however, I will give you a few: For example, according to the article Caravan raids, Misconceptions2 starts out as saying “The raids were generally offensive” and attributes this to William Montgomery Watt, in his book “Muhammad Prophet and Statesman”, a PDF version can be found here [6]. However, according to page 105 of the book, Watt states “In our peace-conscious age it is difficult to understand how a religious leader could thus engage in offensive war and become almost an aggressor. The first thing to be said in explanation of Muhammad’s behaviour is that the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life. It was a kind of sport rather than war.”
This is Watt’s personal interpretation regarding a question posed by presumably Western critics. No where does he state that the majority of the Caravan Raids were offensive. This is a clear misattribution of the sources. This is a common tactic used by WikiIslam.net editors. The section "Muhammad's order and reason for expedition" in List of expeditions of Muhammad, is also very biased, limited, and largely consists of original research.
There is also an extremely heavy reliance on primary sources. As seen here [7], the articles heavily rely on an approximately 1200-1300 year old text, called “The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat rasūl Allāh” translated by Alfred Guillaume. This source is not valid according to Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and is heavily used throughout the articles as well.
issues with the user:
- The user is a notorious sockpuppet and has been blocked for sockpuppetry in the past, see here [8].
- The user also has a strong history of writing articles that violates WP:NPOV.
- The user also refers to fringe and prominent anti-Islamic personalities with the following statement, over here [9]: "these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"". The user has a history [10] of using sources such as Ali Sina, Faith Freedom, Islam Watch, etc. which are known hate sites.
- note: Ali Sina refers to himself as the most anti-Islamic person alive (clearly not neutral), as sourced here [11]. Ali Sina has a militantly anti-Islamic agenda. Sina also has strong links with Pamela Geller.
- note 2: Robert Spencer in a statement expresses fringe and overly-generalized views about Islam and Muslims. An example of this may be seen in his statement "It [Islam] is a religion or a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society ... because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.", as quoted and sourced over here [12].
- note 3: Geert Wilders has called for the militant and forced expulsion of millions of Muslims from Western countries.[1][2]
- This user uses generalized statements aimed towards Muslims, see here “ [13]. This is indicative of a battlefield mentality, of us versus them.
As we can deduce from this history of this user, he appears to have an immense enthusiasm of posting materials from Wikiislam.net, using primary sources he interprets himself/herself, misattributes sources throughout the articles, and engages in sock-puppetry to promote his ideas. Although the topics are interesting, the articles have remained largely unchanged from when Misconceptions2 first published them, and therefore they should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. I request impartial, neutral and rational editors to read books such as, Afzalur Rahman’s “Muhammad As a Military Leader” and others, which give completely different insight of these expeditions, rather than what the author of these articles is stating.
Other articles of his, which also consist of immense bias, violate NPOV, consists of OR, rely heavily on primary sources and have largely remained unchanged since Misconceptions2 has added materials to them include:
Caravan raids, Nejd Caravan Raid, Expedition of 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik, Expedition of Abdullah Ibn Unais, Expedition of Al Raji, The Mission of Amr bin Umayyah al-Damri, Expedition of Bir Maona, Expedition of Dhat al-Riqa, Invasion of Badr, Invasion of Dumatul Jandal, Expedition of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, Second Raid on Banu Thalabah, Invasion of Banu Lahyan, Raid on al-Ghabah, Expedition of Dhu Qarad, Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Al-Jumum), Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Al-Is), Third Raid on Banu Thalabah, Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Hisma), Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Wadi al-Qura), Invasion of Banu Mustaliq, Expedition of Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Expedition of Fadak, Expedition of Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri, Expedition of Abdullah ibn Rawaha, Conquest of Fadak, Third Expedition of Wadi al Qura, Expedition of Umar ibn al-Khatab, Expedition of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, Expedition of Bashir Ibn Sa’d al-Ansari (Fadak), Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Mayfah), Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Fadak), Expedition of Bashir Ibn Sa’d al-Ansari (Yemen), Expedition of Ibn Abi Al-Awja Al-Sulami, Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid), Expedition of Shuja ibn Wahb al-Asadi, Expedition of Ka’b ibn 'Umair al-Ghifari, Expedition of Amr ibn al-As (not started by Misconceptions, however, current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Abu Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah, Expedition of Abi Hadrad al-Aslami, Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Khadirah), Expedition of Abu Qatadah ibn Rab'i al-Ansari (Batn Edam), Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Nakhla), Raid of Amr ibn al-As, Raid of Sa'd ibn Zaid al-Ashhali, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Banu Jadhimah), Expedition of At-Tufail ibn 'Amr Ad-Dausi, Battle of Autas (not started by Mixconceptions2, but current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Abu Amir Al-Ashari, Expedition of Abu Musa Al-Ashari, Siege of Ta'if (not started by Mixconceptions2, but current version is largely of his doing), Expedition of Uyainah bin Hisn, Expedition of Qutbah ibn Amir, Expedition of Dahhak al-Kilabi, Expedition of Alqammah bin Mujazziz, Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Expedition of Ukasha bin Al-Mihsan (Udhrah and Baliy), Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Dumatul Jandal), Expedition of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (2nd Dumatul Jandal), Expedition of Surad ibn Abdullah, Expedition of Khalid ibn al-Walid (Najran), Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Mudhij), Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan), Demolition of Dhul Khalasa, Expedition of Usama bin Zayd.
The articles created by Misconceptions2 should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, since the articles contain an incredible amount of bias, an incredible amount of OR, an incredible amount of materials from Anti-Islamic sites, and an almost total lack of academic secondary sources.
For users uninformed about the matter, here is an online version of the Sealed Nectar (commonly used by the author) in PDF [14], Haykal's "The Life of Muhammad" in PDF [15], which contradict much of the articles. The articles are far beyond repair at this moment and need to be deleted and rebuild. I do not want to see Wikipedia turned into an Islamophobic hate site with content rehashed from wikiislam, faithfreedom, Islam-watch and other Islamophobic websites. I would much rather advocate for a more academic focus on the articles, not marred by bias, misinformation and prejudice. Xtremedood (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ cite|url=https://www.rnw.org/archive/wilders-calls-mass-deportation-muslims%7Ctitle=Wilders calls for mass deportation of Muslims|}}
- ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxOpjcojGM
Comments
- write here, which source used is fake? which source used contradicts whats written in article. Thats a serious allegation.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep- well sourced. If there is a source which is false paste it here and I will check it. From my understanding all sources are accurate--Misconceptions2 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Xtremedood" (nice user name if you're going to be duking it out with ideological opponents on wiki) seems to be conflating a content issue and a user conduct issue. This page is about the merits of a specific topic, not about the conduct of a user contributing to it. If the user posted biased material in the past, learned a lesson and went on to compile a properly sourced article, so much the better, it would mean our system worked. If there is anything fundamentally wrong with a page about "expeditions by Muhammad" sourced on the Quran and Hadith, this would be the place to bring up such objections. Tbh, I do not see any such problem, we have list articles on much more contrived topics. --
- "Wikipedia turned into an Islamophobic hate site" is not the proper way to address this, and if "Xtremedood" wants to be at all taken seriously, he should reconsider his rhetorical approach asap. This is pure name-calling. It is a fact that the hadith among other things contains accounts of the military exploits of Muhammad. This does not make the hadith an "Islamophobic" document, this is ridiculous. Wikipedia is not going to emulate the triumphalistic tone taken by early Islam, neither is it going to suggest such conquest was evil or barbarian, it is just going to report such conquest happened, and report on the triumphalism of the conquerors and the disastrous fate of the conquered, you know, as part of history, as in "stuff that happened to be recorded". If this is "Islamophobic", then Islam itself is "Islamophoic". dab (𒁳) 07:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is not well-sourced with academic materials. Rather, it is a culmination of biased and non-impartial statements made by the user which clearly violate WP:NPOV, using sources that often violate WP's policies regarding primary sources or are misattribution of sources, whose authors did not say what Misconceptions2 is implying. The user has dedicated a lot of effort at posting clearly biased materials, which are often contradict what the sources indicate or state. The hadiths are primary sources, compiled approximately 1300 years ago. Using such sources and interpreting based on your own interpretation violates WP policies. I have studied a variety of his articles, and they are not what academic sources such as Afzalur Rahman, Haykal, and others say. This requires a lot of research and a biased user like Misconceptions2 is spreading a lot of misinformation and non-neutral content. Xtremedood (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- To add, clearly Misconceptions2 has not learned anything from his period of being blocked. In a recent statement of his he states (over here [16]) "I feel the decision to delete data on this topic by 3 people: user:Eperoton, User:Al-Andalusi, User:CounterTime should be looked at again. This is because I worry there maybe a conflict of interest since they are Muslim and the article is about their religion. I worry because the decision to remove the data was made entirely by the above 3 people ALONE and since all 3 are Muslims there is possible bias?". Not only is there no proof that these users are necessarily Muslims, he also demonstrates a biased battlefield mentality, which is indicative of an us versus them approach. He clearly seems to have something against Muslims. This is not a user who should be publishing so many articles related to the central figure of Muslims. This negativity towards Muslims appears to have passed on to the articles he has published and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of the sources used here are by muslims themselves. I did learn lessons. i did NOT use any fringe websites or anti Islamic sources. Most are academic. Tell me fake source used and i will look into it. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- To add, clearly Misconceptions2 has not learned anything from his period of being blocked. In a recent statement of his he states (over here [16]) "I feel the decision to delete data on this topic by 3 people: user:Eperoton, User:Al-Andalusi, User:CounterTime should be looked at again. This is because I worry there maybe a conflict of interest since they are Muslim and the article is about their religion. I worry because the decision to remove the data was made entirely by the above 3 people ALONE and since all 3 are Muslims there is possible bias?". Not only is there no proof that these users are necessarily Muslims, he also demonstrates a biased battlefield mentality, which is indicative of an us versus them approach. He clearly seems to have something against Muslims. This is not a user who should be publishing so many articles related to the central figure of Muslims. This negativity towards Muslims appears to have passed on to the articles he has published and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is not well-sourced with academic materials. Rather, it is a culmination of biased and non-impartial statements made by the user which clearly violate WP:NPOV, using sources that often violate WP's policies regarding primary sources or are misattribution of sources, whose authors did not say what Misconceptions2 is implying. The user has dedicated a lot of effort at posting clearly biased materials, which are often contradict what the sources indicate or state. The hadiths are primary sources, compiled approximately 1300 years ago. Using such sources and interpreting based on your own interpretation violates WP policies. I have studied a variety of his articles, and they are not what academic sources such as Afzalur Rahman, Haykal, and others say. This requires a lot of research and a biased user like Misconceptions2 is spreading a lot of misinformation and non-neutral content. Xtremedood (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Since Misconceptions2 posted before I finalized the opening paragraphs, I suspect my delete vote may not be registered in the afd stats, so I am going to post my vote here. Xtremedood (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do not worry, this is not a vote or democratic process. Also why do a "User attack", kettle calling pot black??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have shown that you are not a qualified user to be making such articles. Your biases, your misattribution of sources within these articles, your immense usages of primary sources, your OR, and the fact that you are reusing materials from a well-known anti-Islamic (non-neutral) source shows that these articles are not fit to be in WP. Xtremedood (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do not worry, this is not a vote or democratic process. Also why do a "User attack", kettle calling pot black??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 12:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I give up with you. I told you to name anti islamic sources. You won't. Or do you mean the Unviersity published books are the anti islamic sources?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Following comment by Misconceptions2, moved by Xtremedood because it was placed in the opening, when it does not belong there:
"Which anti islamic site has been used? Most of the sources used are Muslim soruces like The Sealed Nectar--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)"
and
"1. It is Muslims scholars who say that most of Muhammad's raid were offensive. Please see: http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm by a Muslim scholar who outlined which were offensive and which were not. He lists 80%+ as offensive.
2. "The life of Muhammad: a translation of Isḥāq's Sīrat rasūl Allāh” translated by Alfred Guillaume" is a primary source. You are right. Thats why it has been mostly used in the primary source column. The source is significant and relevant because its the earliest existing biography of Muhammad used by Muslim scholar Ibn Ishaq. All secondary sources use primary sources for the basis of what they wrote. Some have used this, some have used others. It only makes sense to mention this in the article in the primary sources column. Its not like I used it as a source for the text written here. Its a source for the text written in secondary sources !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)"
- The source you indicated does not say that. The source is also not a published source, the website is not reliable according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It is not academic and not related to the statement. The point is that you sourced Watt as the source for this statement, when Watt clearly did not say that. This shows that you are misattributing sources, which shows an immense bias. Also, your reliance on primary sources, over here [17] are typically without a secondary source. For example you can look at Ibn Ishaq's source, which is not accompanied with a secondary source. You also heavily rely on other primary sources such as Tabari, the Hadiths, etc. which are 1000+ year old texts. They are typically not accompanied with secondary sources in your articles. Xtremedood (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a PDF version of the Sealed Nectar [18]. Looking through your articles it is clear that the Sealed Nectar does not state what you include in your articles. You have a tendency of picking and choosing certain passages which conform with your own POV, while ignoring or neglecting positive passages and passages which do not adhere to your POV. Xtremedood (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I told you I give up with you. i need examples of where the source does not back up what is written. Otherwise please do not reply back to me--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a PDF version of the Sealed Nectar [18]. Looking through your articles it is clear that the Sealed Nectar does not state what you include in your articles. You have a tendency of picking and choosing certain passages which conform with your own POV, while ignoring or neglecting positive passages and passages which do not adhere to your POV. Xtremedood (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Afd is the wrong location to resolve a content dispute. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- The content literally spans nearly several dozen articles. This justifies Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, which states: "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." The extreme POV, bias, and misinformation is so much that it deserves a restart. Not to mention it is simply a rehash of two already deleted articles which are List of killings of Muhammad and Muhammad and assassinations. See above for the deletion discussions. Also, the user was once indefinitely banned, but was allowed to operate again. Xtremedood (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)