Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of the Banu Qurayza

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfied to User:Striver/Siege of the Banu Qurayza by Striver and deleted by Gurch. Chick Bowen 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of the Banu Qurayza

This article, created by User:Striver is a quote farm and a content fork of a section in the existing article Banu Qurayza. Splitting a daughter article from Banu Qurayza is unnecessary, as the article is only about 26KB long, but it contains pretty much all the necessary material about its subject. Beit Or 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a POV fork designed to get around ongoing content disputes at the main article. Its main purpose appears to be to excuse the killing of the Banu Qurayza men by erroneously asserting that the massacre was conducted according to Jewish law; at best, this is a fringe theory unsupported by the extant sources. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Banu Qurayza is the article of a tribe, this is the article about a notable event that the tribe underwent. The tribe is notable for many things other than this event, including its pre Islamic history and the events that occurred before the siege. When the article was created, i had worked to expand the siege part of the article, and my addition, including the previously large amount of text that was there ended up in the siege part of the article taking over 2/3 of the entire article. At the time of the split, no material was removed, it was not an attempt to dodge any consensus of any kind. On the contrary, this very siege has been a hot topic for long and has several times ended in the lock down of the entire tribe article. Considering the highly controversial and notable nature of this siege, it is nothing more than normal procedure to give it it's own article. Remember that this is not "the X perspecite of the Seige" or anything, it is just Siege of the Banu Qurayza, a NPOV and accurate name of a event deserving a article that devotes full attention to it. Other precedence can be seen in the article Khaybar and the Battle of Khaybar. It is true that the content of both this and the original article are in dispute, but the split was not done to dodge or evade any consensus, on the contrary, this article has been prominently linked to from the main article and a section describing it has been introduced. But without giving any good reason, a part of the editors have refused the split of this highly notable event and want it confined to one single article. I have invited them to expand the article on this event, but they have refused to do so, and now is one of them trying to get ridd of the article, claiming it is a "POV Fork". My question is: How can an article about a battle be a POV fork of an article about a tribe? --Striver 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, regarding content dispute, i again urge you to edit the article. Some editor undertook himself to rewrite the siege section, but did it on the main page and choose to ignore the article devoted to the siege. On the talk page, i commended him for bringing more material, but also asked him why he deleted other views that existed on that article while doing so. Now that the main article has dramatically changed its POV, this article is accused of having the other POV, something that was never intended. right now, i am working to incorporate that new material to this article. The effort is on having a ALL POV article, and doing so in detail would end up giving one aspect of the tribes history undue weight and overshadow the rest of it's history. --Striver 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Your use of "Undue weight" is totally inapposite here. As Zora points out, virtually everything known about the BQ relates of their interaction with Muhammad and his followers. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that includes much more than this notable but single event. Right? and btw, if you read the article, you will see that it has substantial pre-Islamic sections, sections that will be totally overshadowed in size if we merge all the siege content, as is being done right now, and then add it to the main tribe article --Striver 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since all we know about the Banu Qurayza consists of their fatal interaction with the Muslim community at Medina, as reported by Islamic sources (which makes what we "know" rather nebulous), taking this out of the article and leaving a shell with nothing in it is contra-indicated. The title of the new article is also misleading, since the meat of the dispute is 1) the events leading to the siege, and the credibility of the reasons given for it and 2) the aftermath of the siege, the killing of the adult male Banu Qurayza. The title "Banu Qurayza" is truly NPOV, since it takes no position on the morality of the conflict and its conclusion. No POV forks, please. Zora 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, lets rename the Battle+aftermath article, no dispute on my side. But the fact remains that Banu Qurayza is the name of a tribe that lived for several hundred years, and having a tribe article consisting of 2/3 about a single event is not neutral in it self, quoting WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If the argument is that the event is not notable, then keep it small, if the argument is that the event is notable, then it most surely deserves it's own article. The name of the article is of no concern for me, i only with to follow WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Striver 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, it seems strange that you vote to delete, and then proceed to revert me when i try to work on the article. Please do not remove my work without comments or attempts of communication or compromise while the afd is in progress.--Striver 00:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, are you suggesting that the fact there is an ongoing afd precludes you from following wikipedia policy on this article?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i simply mean that it is unfair to argue that this article is pov and redundant and thus needs to be delete, while insisting to revert to such a version. Please do not remove content from the article as it gives the people judging the article a bad impression, and further. i would like to quote Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of articles ... is a common vandal edit.". Further, your edit summary "rv per past talk page discussions" is not helpful since you have not left any message there, nor is there any message that justifies removal of content.--Striver 03:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, you again removed all Islam-non-endorsing material giving "alright then, I'm removing it because your additions are needlessly long winded, confusing and of questionable relevance" as edit summary. If they are long, then work with me to make them better, they are in no way confusing, and how in the world can William Muirs account of the Siege of the Banu Qurayza be irrelevant to the Siege of the Banu Qurayza article? You are disrupting the afd process by making the article unbalanced and then argue that it is a POV fork, please refrain from that. --Striver 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Briangotts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom GabrielF 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article was cerated without consensus in order to remove material valid but unpleasant to some from the main article. Also, there is no real justification for a separate article, since the demise of that tribe is almost all we know about it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no atempt to remove anything. Could you please inform me of a single sentence that i have tried to remove or hide? Please do not give unfactual statements. As for other other things known about the tribe, except for its demise, anyone interested can see the main article and view the unfactuality of your statement.--Striver 00:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i am finished presenting the view of William Muir, the article is considerably more balanced. If you doubt it, read his views in the "non-Muslim view" section. --Striver 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and harvest details. frummer 04:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork per nom, Tewfik^Talk 05:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know this article needs a lot of work, but it should be kept so as to discuss the events in greater depth. I don't see how this is a POV fork, since it doesn't cater to any one persepective, but only describes te events.Bless sins 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no more information than is already present in the article. All we have is Ibn Ishaq (as excerpted in Tabari) and a few hadith, all of which are already included. Information will not magically appear if we fork off another article. Zora 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Moshe is deleting everything new i add, and then people argue "pov Fork". That is not honest. Original content will not appear just as with any other historical account, but secondary sources are plentifully and the subject of the article is so controversial that there is no risk of running out of information, we have after all access to 1400 years of scholarly comments. If you think about it, we also have only one single original source for the existence of Jesus, right?--Striver 11:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete, the condition being that Battle of Khaybar be merged into Khaybar, as it serves as a precedent for having two distinct articles on the Qurayza. else, Keep. the EoI and other sources do provide a decent amount of information about Qurayza's history and activities before the hijra (as well as the siege), and the siege itself is controversial enough to warrant its own article, especially as a number of factors concerning it have been disputed. ITAQALLAH 09:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 09:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 09:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khaybar is a place about which much can be written outside of the battle. Moreover, the "Battle of Khaybar" is well known as a distinct event. The Banu Qurayza are a tribe, not a place; moreover, they are a tribe about whom virtually nothing is known beyond the fact that they were massacred. There is no comparison between the two. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"virtually nothing is known beyond the fact that they were massacred"? That is most certainly untrue for anyone bothering to read the main article, why is this sort of false statements continually repeated in his afd? In fact, the main article has more infomation about other aspects of the tribe that it has about ths siege and killings. --Striver 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 192.114.91.250 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editors second edit. --Striver 19:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into original article. The quotes are too long and the article is so colorful one almost thinks its supposed to be edible. --64.230.127.103 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial issues, please accept the invitation on the talk page regarding improving the article. Note: Users third edit, and first day of editing.--Striver 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; POV fork, WP:SOAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment i have userfied it and requested speedy deletion.--Striver 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close the afd --Striver 13:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or merge back, no PoV forking. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.