User talk:Accredited

Hi Accredited, Please stop editing statements that already have been discussed or have been sourced. See also WP:NOR (which means that you can't refer to a single hadith, since it is not cited by a reputable source). --

There is no indication to support your statement in contradiction to the Hadith in question. I call on you to cease and desist from your unwarranted edits in violation of the rules. Accredited (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. On his talk page he can delete what he wants as long as he respects no personal attacks and doesn't imply you said something you didn't. The article talk page is the right place for this and I will be watching it. Please however try to assume good faith on everyone's part and be as fair and balanced as you can. --BozMo talk 13:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Thanks[reply]

Violation of 3rr

You violated the 3rr rule, while editing. You reverted 4 times between 16:22, 29 April and 08:38, 30 April:[1],[2],[3],[4] As this seems to be your first offense and that the page is protected, I have not reported you. Please read

It is the other side which constantly violated the rules and keeps erasing my last response on his talk page but the camel does not see its hump. Accredited (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited: The issue has been discussed, explained and/or sourced. And if you keep on undoing my edits in my own talk-page I'll report you. --

It is not appropriate to erase part of the record even in your own talk page. Accredited (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I do in my own talk-page is none of your business. I do not tolerate nonsense in my talkpage. --

This is 1-1. The 3RR violation is in any case rendered irrelevant by the page protection. Blocks are to prevent repetition and whilst the page is protected this is not needed. However Devotus is right that his talk page is not the place to discuss edits, the article talk page is. He has latitude on his own talk page. However when the block comes off the article I will be quick to block any party which restarts or engages in an edit war. That is where the important discussion on content is needed. --BozMo talk 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the record of our last discussion on the matter.

Islamic sources mention that only Akhtab and his son rather than the whole Banu Nadir tribe, joined the siege of Medina. It should also be mentioned that they bribed Ghatafan and tried to recruit Banu Qurayza. Accredited (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Watt's theory is generally accepted in scholarship. That the Nadir joined the siege is also a fact that any recognized scholar accepts as such. "From Khaybar, the exiles planned with the Quraysh the siege of Medina..." EI2, s.v. Nadir. "Montgomery Watt has drawn attention to the fact that the Banu Nadir, driven out of Medina, had taken refuge in Khaybar and that their chieftains and the chieftains of other Jewish groups, eager for revenge, were intriguing against Muhammad along with the Arabs tribes of the neighbourhood... The sources give support to the view of Montgomery Watt, showing that the Jews, already responsible for the coalition which had laid siege to Medina in 5 A.H. and worried by the growing power of the Prophet, continued to stir up the Arabs against him..." s.v. Khaybar. Primary sources are not to be used in Wikipedia. End of Discussion. --Devotus (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is Watt's theory it should read according to Watt. No scholar has said that the Nadir joined the siege. You may quote Watt or any other scholar on the matter. Accredited (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

see above. it doesn't say hat they joined the siege, it sais they had participated in attacking the Muslims; there's a difference. --Devotus (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Watt nor any other scholar has said that the Banu Nadir participated in attacking the Muslims. Accredited (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See quotes above. You don't seem to have any academic work, neither Watt nor anyone else, so I doubt you could know that. --Devotus (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How would the Banu Nadir participate in attacking the Muslims if they did not join the siege? Accredited (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to give you private lessons. End of discussion. --Devotus (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be consistent with Watt's words and the Encyclopedia of Islam. Accredited (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is consistent with those works which you don't have. --Devotus (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your version is referenced to the above two but goes far beyond. This is unacceptable. Accredited (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide reference to those works you claim that your version is based on. Accredited (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked for days from responding to you on the references on the article talk page.

Here are the pertinent references on the armies composition in the Battle of the Trench.

7. ^ a b c d Lings, Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources, p. 215-6.

8. ^ a b c al-Halabi, Sirat-i-Halbiyyah (Vol. II, part 12), p. 19.

Furthermore, the long standing text since June 14, 2006, that you deleted is sourced and referenced to Stillman (1979), p. 17 in which he states: "The Jews of this rich oasis must have clearly understood the danger they were in. Huyayy B. Akhtab had gone from Khaybar with his son to join the Meccan and Bedouin forces besieging Medina at the time of the battle of the Trench." No source makes mention of any Banu Nadir troops in the army. Your statement that Watt had said and modern scholars also agree that Muhammad attacked Khaybar because the Jews "participated in attacking the Muslims" is false. Accredited (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly removed well sourced material from the article on UN resolution 242 despite lengthy good faith discussions on the article talk page. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.

Check - I don't understand why the good faith work of other editors needs messing around the way you're doing. Thatchum (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]